And so I pop up, like some sort of unkennable furry rodent, from my piles of briefs and filehistories and pleadings to comment on the least consequential story of the day:
Ramesh Ponnuru is an ass.
I'm not an anti-Ponnuru. Indeed, I don't know him from Adam. I've barely read the guy. I do find it a little weird that everyone at NROnline takes pains to point out how intelligent he is whenever they criticize him -- but, then, I find a lot of stuff at NROnline a little weird. Calling a conservative commentator "K-Lo." John Derbyshire's strange affection for the word "buggery." Donald Luskan.
Look, man, don't judge me. I just read it for the articles. The Jonah Goldberg articles ....
I digress. Back to Ramesh Ponnuru, and his recent ass-hood.
For those who have had better things to do with their time, a quick review:
Ramesh Ponnuru, at the time not-yet-an-ass (an "ass in waiting"?), pens an article accusing Lawrence Tribe, legal darling of the left, of academic misconduct.
The article argues that an old piece by Tribe in The Green Bag was filled with lies and and scandalotry. Tribe is accused of, among other things, puffing himself up.
Tom Goldstein of ScotusBlog, points out that the Ponnuru's article seems to be a bit of a tempest in a teapot.
Ponnuru calls Goldstein "slippery and dishonest."
Goldstein prints a series of excruciatingly detailed arguments showing that Ponnuru has, at a minimum, misstated or misunderstood certain key facts. (Helpfully collected by Juan Non Volokh here and here.)
Ponnuru calls Goldstein "rock dumb."
And so it goes from there, with Goldstein earnestly pointing out (a little over-eagerly, perhaps) every niggling fault in Ponnuru's piece and Ponnuru finding new ways of stringing together sentences out of the words "stupid," "dumb," "rock," and "Goldstein." (For completeness, Tribe's response is here.)
Faced with such fun, Reasonable commentators -- which, you should already know, obviously includes yours truly -- conclude that Tribe was a wee bit self indulgent in his memories of himself (to put it politely). It has been known to happen.
But we conclude a few other things, too: Ponnuru significantly overstated his criticisms of Tribe. Ponnuru made a couple mistatements. He was sloppy. He was also well out of his league in his battles with Goldstein. As Erick Jaffe of Volokh put it,
My suggestion to Mr. Ponnuru, however, is to lay off the name calling. If you have arguments, make them, and let the readers decide. Resorting to name-calling suggests that you lack more substantive responses and are perhaps out of your weight class. If you want to duke it out with the big boys then start acting like one.
Indeed, Ponnuru's exchanges with Goldstein were, in many ways, quite telling as to whether Ponnuru is worthy of much attention in the notimenow world. They showed that Ponnuru could dish it, but couldn't take it. That he easily confuses vicious words with a vicious attack. That he's capable of j'accuse and scream, but he can't always muster an argument. (None of us always can, in fairness.) That he can be quick to slander and slow to reason.
That he was, as colloquially defined, an ass.
I won't be waiting with baited breath for the next Ponnuru "article." Better things to do with my time and all.
Let us here explore the semantic differences between the terms 'ass' and 'jackass'. My sense is that 'ass' refers to anyone who is boorish, rude, and generally inappropriately behaved. 'jackass' would refer to a subset of asses who are unaware of their assish behavior, and therefore have the additional stigma of being ignorant, or at least socially insensitive, asses. Also, jackass is more satisfying to say. I submit that under these guidelines, Mr. Ponnuru does qualify as an ass, but not a jackass, as he seems well aware of his behavior, thinking it justified. Thoughts?
Posted by: sidereal | March 14, 2005 at 08:11 PM
I have always been fond of the word 'asshat' (watching people sling it at each other , mind you, not using it myself). Of course, this word is more linked to general cluelessness, so I'm not sure if self-awareness is implicit in the definition.
While I'm not sure what label to use, I agree with von on the substantive aspect of his point, but I feel (and I hope this observation doesn't insult anyone here) the NRO corner is blogdom's proof that birds of a feather...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | March 14, 2005 at 08:35 PM
"the NRO corner is blogdom's proof that birds of a feather...
I agree with LJ's sentiment.
I also agree with von's opinion of Ponnuru, but there is one thing in the post that puzzles me. What is the deal with Goldberg? Von mentions him favorably here, Charles named him as one of his favorite commentators, and Sebastian, I dimly recall, has also spoken well of him.
To be blunt, Goldberg has always struck me as an idiot. I find his writing ill-informed and poorly reasoned. He seems to be intent on making a career as a right-wing pundit, and to be willing to write anything at all that might curry favor with those who could advance that ambition. Hilzoy skewered him on an extremely stupid article he wrote on torture a couple of months ago, and that particular item was, to me, typical of the "depth" of his thinking.
I honestly don't think my attitude is wholly based on ideological differences. Am I missing something? Can anyone point me to some especially thoughtful or insightful piece Goldberg has written?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | March 14, 2005 at 09:04 PM
I'm with Bernard (of course, I would be), both in not liking Goldberg and in being mystified at his appeal.
Posted by: hilzoy | March 14, 2005 at 09:08 PM
I have less respect for Jonah Goldberg's mother than I have for Lucianne Goldberg's (well-known; does she have any others?) son.
There's a phrase for this sort of remark. It's called "d****** **** ***** *****e."
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 14, 2005 at 09:30 PM
Goldberg attacks Juan Cole, Ponnuru attacks Tribe. I sense a pattern here, of weakening the infrastructure. Course I see patterns everywhere.
I like Goldberg marginally better than the others because of a sense of humour, some self-deprecation, and because I guess that in his heart of hearts he doesn't really hate liberals. He is just doing his job. A lot of the right-wing hacks like Malkin & Brooks seem desperate and scared, always having to re-establish their hack creds with the base. Goldberg seems to be having fun.
Course Ann Coulter also seems to be having fun.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | March 14, 2005 at 10:35 PM
I have always been fond of the word 'asshat' (watching people sling it at each other , mind you, not using it myself).
But why would you want to talk about Bobby Flay?
Posted by: Anarch | March 15, 2005 at 02:58 AM
But why would you want to talk about Bobby Flay?
Dude. Marry me.
OT, but Bobby Flay has to rank as one of the world's premiere asshats. I can't stand watching that smug sonovatitch prance around on ICA like king $hit of turd mountain, and love watching him get pwned.
Dates back to his appearances on the original Iron Chef, I think. No class whatsoever.
Posted by: Catsy | March 15, 2005 at 03:09 AM
Dude. Marry me.
I'm not entirely sure we're compatible, but I'll put you on the list ;)
OT, but Bobby Flay has to rank as one of the world's premiere asshats.
That sentiment is never OT. It's the pure and primal topic that underlies all reality. Indeed, I can wax on for hours about the Asshattery of Teh Asshat Bobby Flay, and the horrific unfairness that he gets Stephanie March and I don't. The world, indeed, is harsh and cruel.
Not that I dislike him or anything.
Now shifting even further off-topic: Television Without Pity now has an entire forum devoted to Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee, the only FoodTV personality who can give Bobby Flay a run for his asshatted money. See, Flay has the one vaguely almost kinda sorta redeeming quality in that he can actually cook; SLoP, aka Ol' Puddin' Cups, is not similarly endowed. [Though, as you might have guessed from her moniker, she is otherwise endowed.] If you're into cooking and you like snarking at trainwrecks, SHCSL is truly the show for you.
And now I retire, secure in the knowledge of another high-speed threadjack has been accomplished without hitch. Have a peeptini on me, and I'll catch y'all on the flip side.
Posted by: Anarch | March 15, 2005 at 03:21 AM
Touche' -- Jackass is the more appropriate term. Back to my Fortress of Grammitude.
As for Goldberg, well, he's got a sense of humor, he writes engagingly, and he usually reasons well. Incidentally, if we start listing all of the idiotic statements made by columnists (or bloggers, for that matter), we'd end up listening to no one. Which, among other things, ain't all that healthy for a free society.
Posted by: von | March 15, 2005 at 10:42 AM
BY
What is the deal with Goldberg? Von mentions him favorably here,
and hilzoy
I'm with Bernard ... in being mystified at his appeal.
The, ahem, articles that von likes many times have the word "timewaster" in the title. Or perhaps he likes it because Jonah links to important subjects like
this.
Oh, perhaps I should have included a warning.
Posted by: DaveC | March 15, 2005 at 10:55 AM
The definition of "asshat" in LJ's first link is, IMO, inconsistent with usage. Asshats are, as everyone knows, people who wear their own buttocks as earmuffs. IOW, those afflicted with chronic cranialrectosis. The implication here is the person in question is unable to understand the conversation because of aural obstruction, and of sufficiently dubious mental capacity (partly due to an inclination to wear one's sphincter as a choker necklace) to be considered part of the conversation.
The second link was more accurate, but too self-referential to be useful.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 15, 2005 at 11:14 AM
von,
My point about the torture column was not so much that it was stupid, though it was, but that it struck me as typical of Goldberg's work.
I confess I don't read him a lot, but what I've seen on the Corner and elsewhere is, I think, consistently pretty bad.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | March 15, 2005 at 12:14 PM
The definition of "asshat" in LJ's first link is, IMO, inconsistent with usage.
I don't want to be accused of spreading urban myths, so I should have urged everyone to read all the way to the bottom of that link, where it has this disclaimer.
Disclaimer: I made all of this up. I did absolutely no research whatsoever to come up with this. If you have a problem with the way I wrote this, you are in fact an asshat.
In terms of kharma, this probably makes me an asshat for getting Slarti accused of being an asshat.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | March 15, 2005 at 06:21 PM
Agreed, although I freely admit to being an asshat on a regular basis. I think it must be genetic or something.
But technically speaking, I don't have a problem with the way he wrote that, just what he wrote. So I can probably wriggle out of the auto-asshatting process.
Which, I suspect, makes me an asshat.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 15, 2005 at 06:37 PM
auto-asshatting process
aka Blogging Software
Posted by: Macallan | March 15, 2005 at 06:45 PM
Heh. No, Mac, blogging doesn't make one an asshat, it simply outs one as an asshat.
Are we getting any Google hits for "asshat", now, I wonders?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 15, 2005 at 06:57 PM
Joe Biden is a huge asshat. Or perhaps a jackass. Either way: Although his policy views are very similar to mine, more similar than a Dean's or a Feingold's, I will never, ever, ever vote for this man in a presidential primary. Ever.
Posted by: Katherine | March 15, 2005 at 09:12 PM