Today we face the ever-present dilemma--How do you respond to the disingenuous argument? Do you simply ignore it (Did you hear something?) and keep going? Or do you respond (I'LL CUT YOU!!!) and dignify the dishonesty. Today I opt to respond mostly because, well, this is funny.
Mickey Kaus takes note of a WSJ article pointing out that rappers are scaling back on their bling because of the recession. Mickey then takes this as evidence that Maria Batiata cringe-worthy contention that Obama would kill off "bling" and make black kids think its cool to wear a suit (stop laughing) has been redeemed.
The problems with Battiata's piece were legion. The problem with Kaus's piece is, as Conor Clarke points out, singular--Obama isn't mentioned in the entire piece. Like not once. Now, I don't put it past Mickey to believe that Obama is responsible for the recession. And who knows, maybe Obama is responsible for it-- right along with climate change, mumbo sauce, and the decline of British sea power.
Still, while I've yet to see proof of Obama's divinity, I think this post is proof of Kaus arguing in bad faith. Kaus knows full well that Battiata didn't claim the recession would kill off bling. But he doesn't much care about facts, nor does he care about the actual content of his arguments, nor does he care about the people reading his blog. He just says shit, mostly with the intent of being heard.
Now that I've obliged him, I feel just a little dumber this afternoon. A simple "I'LL CUT YOU!!!" would have sufficed. Or rather this...
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.