“I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization.”
— O. W. Holmes
OT, but sorta related:
A judge has dismissed Individual-ONE’s lawsuit against the Grey Lady for reporting on his taxes and has ordered him to cover their legal costs, to the tune of about $400K. Apparently NY has strong anti-SLAPP laws (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and, of course, the Grey Lady has the US Constitution on their side.
Unfortunately, the other defendant, Mary Trump, is still fighting the related NDA suit, and not faring quite so well.
Thread here:
I went to a Libertarian school, and occasionally called myself one, and this sounds SO familiar. They try not to come right out and say it, but that “negate anything the government tries to do” attitude informs everything they comment on.
You mean that document Trump and his lawyers regularly wipe their collective ass with?
I would hate to be the one who hears “you’re next.”
This center-left poster endorses the Volokh Conspiracy blog. It started as a blog in 2002, migrated to WAPO in 2014, before moving to Reason in 2017: it is editorially independent of the latter. Thirty people, mostly law professors, run the place.
Steven Calabresi is a law professor at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law who once worked in the Reagan administration under Edwin Meese. He is not listed under “Who We Are”, though he has penned a number of articles at the website. Based upon the linked article, he is a complete hack. He asserts without evidence that this fraud is a victimless crime, despite fairly high profile pieces saying the opposite. Now you can be wrong and still be a good scholar - this happens all the time. But when you flatly assert something without evidence that any informed peer of yours knows is dubious at best, you are a hack. If Mr. Calabresi discussed whether this fraud was a victimless crime and wrongly concluded that it was that would be different. That’s not what he did. The opinions of Steven Calabresi should generally be ignored as he is a wholly unreliable narrator.
Mr. Calabresi needs to rethink his life choices, as does the staff of the Volokh conspiracy. But I stress I’ve read some terrific articles there, and Volokh himself has a healthy curiosity about the world. Their politics generally differs from mine, but I’ve learned a lot from their articles. Differing perspectives can aid in the fight against ignorance, but the process isn’t automatic. You have to be both an independent thinker and avoid tendentious nonsense.
Calabresi is incredibly intelligent, having graduated Yale Law School, clerked for Scalia, and is a law professor at Northwestern. I’ve heard him speak, and his intelligence, research, and memory are impressive.
He also co-wrote an article supporting the second impeachment of Trump, stating: “We should not allow that to happen. He tried to steal the election and incited a mob to abet his wrongdoing. He is a danger to the nation and must be removed immediately and disqualified from ever holding public office again.”
But, he’s also the co-chair of the Federalist Society, a supporter of “originalism”, and has wriiten extensively in support of the “unitary executive” theory.
I wouldn’t call him a political hack. He’s certainly motivated by his political ideology, and is relatively predictable where he will land on any issue, but I don’t think he’s a hack. Often wrong with a poorly reasoned view of the Constitution, but not a hack.
Josh Blackman, another frequent contributor at Volokh, however, is nothing more than a political hack and bootlicker.
Calabresi wrote a hack-piece. Now it’s possible that he’s posturer, alternating hack pieces with begrudged but actual analysis. I don’t know: I haven’t read enough of his work. Writing hackery isn’t a failure of intelligence and it certainly isn’t a failure of ambition: hack artists often have a keen nose for their audience. It’s a failure of character, at least for those with the skills to earn a comfortable living in an honest manner. [1]
Sincere thanks to Hamlet for providing necessary context. Calabresi’s links to the Federalist Society don’t surprise me as the organization is thoroughly corrupt, run by the likes of Leonard Leo who organized the billionaire sponsorship program for Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
“There was always a concern that Scalia or Thomas would say, ‘Fuck it,’ and quit the job and go make way more money at Jones Day or somewhere else,” Conway said, referring to the powerful conservative law firm. “Part of what Leonard does is he tries to keep them happy so they stay on the job.”
Leo has helped arrange for Scalia and Thomas to attend private donor retreats hosted by the Koch brothers dating as far back as 2007; once, Leo even interviewed Thomas at a Koch summit. The Federalist Society flew Scalia to picturesque locales like Montana and Napa Valley to speak to members. After his Napa appearance, Scalia flew to Alaska for a fishing trip on a plane owned by Arkley.
[1] Honestly I don’t have a problem with being a hack like Karl Rove or Carville, because there’s no truth in advertising issue. This is very different than using your perch at a top 20 university to disguise advocacy as analysis.
Liberals do it too! And this isn’t a false equivalence: there are lots of leftie advocates in academia. But my point remains: the unfiltered opinions of hacks like Calabresi should be discounted to the point where taking them seriously is wrong, unless you as a reader take care to check every claim, factual or otherwise, in a rigorous fashion. Or they are publishing in a venue with rigorous peer review or strong editing and fact checking. Otherwise, just ignore the hacks in favor of honest reporters. And remember: you can be honest and still have strong or even extreme opinions.
Isn’t this just an ad hominem attack? Call a guy a political hack, so you can ignore everything he says? I suppose there is a place for it for the 99% of the internet where anonymous idiots spout crap. But Calabresi is an intelligent, well-regarded, successful, law professor. I don’t think it’s wise to simply wave your hand and cry “political hack!”, so you can ignore what he says.
There is a massive difference between a 600 word opinion piece on a website, and a case brief/judicial ruling. Calabresi’s article is a short little op-ed with no real support and is not, in any traditional sense “reporting”. He’s offering his quick take opinion on issues that may very well be relevant and real. I haven’t done enough research into the specifics he mentions, but at least he has the credential where his opinion on the issue matters.
That said, it’s a piss poor piece that offers no actual support for his propositions, is rife with partisan conclusory statements like " And, everyone on both sides of the aisle knows that it is all because New York has a lot of people, especially in the Democratic Party, who hate Trump." and is based, at least in part, on needing to overrule an ancient case. He does, however, raise some valid issues that, if I had more time and inclination, I could look into. But, again, it’s a shitty little opinion piece, not a case brief.
If you want to discount it on that basis, great. It’s unsupported conclusion after unsupported conclusion. Reject it for that. But simply saying "I disagree with Calabresi, so he’s a political hack and can be ignored, is a disservice to debate and fighting ignorance.
Ad hominen isn’t always a logical fallacy, because it’s necessary to evaluate the quality of one’s sourcing. When an expert misrepresents his subject matter, his views as an expert should no longer be taken seriously (giving due allowance for errors, which we all make).
What if you are an expert in the subject matter? Then go ahead, read Calabresi, though frankly I consider it a waste of time. Because I’m not setting the bar especially high.[1] Calabresi knew very well that fraud laws exist for a reason, and that when one person says their property is worth twice its value to a bank, they are fraudulently redirecting funding to a worse investment. There are definitely victims, he knows it, and there were plenty of commentators saying exactly this to remind him. He wasn’t arguing that he disagreed with them: he simply made his dubious assertion without at all indicating that it was utter nonsense.
What’s the downside to ignoring Calabresi? Basically it’s nothing: if he comes up with anything worthwhile, one of his fellow travelers can repeat it. If they have any credibility at all and they are not relying on Calabresi as an authority or a person worth listening to, I’d give them a respectful hearing.
If you want to be taken seriously, don’t be a clown. It’s pretty simple.
[1] Tangent: within the context of discussion among experts (who know when you’re scooping bullshit) there are other standards of argument. One of them is not misrepresenting your opponent’s position. If you do that, an appropriate rejoinder would be, “Come back when you have a real argument.” The point being is that there’s a price of admission to be taken seriously. It’s not high, but it’s there. Letting someone in free just because they have a particular point of view is a disservice to debate and fighting ignorance. (No, I’m not mocking you Hamlet - I have strong views, but I think we’ve had a solid discussion.)
The “somebody else will mention it, so I don’t need to hear this particular person” is, generally speaking, true of every single thing anyone can ever say these days, regardless of political position. I prefer to work with the ideas, not the person delivering the ideas.
It certainly takes a lot of gumption to call a guy with Calabresi’s curriculum vitae a “clown”. I disagree with him on a ton of things, but he’s not a clown.
We agree, the opinion piece he wrote was conclusionary garbage with little to no support. But I feel much better informed about the issue, and it raised interesting issues that I hadn’t thought about before. I prefer that to an echo chamber.
I’m saying that Calabrese is unreliable, so he shouldn’t be paid attention to unless you want to fact check every sentence and every clause.
It certainly takes a lot of gumption to call a guy with Calabresi’s curriculum vitae a “clown”. I disagree with him on a ton of things, but he’s not a clown.
Whether or not Calabresi scored 900 on an IQ test is irrelevant to his clownish arguments. Being a clown is a choice. Calabresi could always take off the clown nose and funny makeup. Not only was his writing garbage, it dishonestly attempted to mislead the reader. That’s where the problem is.
But I feel much better informed about the issue, and it raised interesting issues that I hadn’t thought about before.
Cite?
I concede that if you have a background in law, you are better prepared to abstract away from the bullshit. But if you don’t, Calabrese’s writings are best utilized as bird cage linings or perhaps wood stove tinder.
echo chamber
I want to be understood. Upthread I defended Volokh Conspiracy because while they trend further right than I do, they easily clear my low minimum standards of argument - as well as my higher ones. I’m not applying an ideological filter, unlike most American conservatives who are scared by the freaking NYT (an institution that has basically never taken the side of a union during a labor dispute). I am advocating a standard of integrity not a political litmus test: Calabrese fails. Luckily, the Volokh conspiracy offers much better fare, something I wanted to emphasize.
So yes, echo chambers are to be avoided. But so are dishonest arguments especially from writers who are bright enough to know exactly what they are doing.
PS: I just added Volokh to my bookmarks. Tragically an article by Calabrese was on the front page and worse it was informative if a little bland and while it made dubious claims, they were obviously so. So it wasn’t god-awful, merely mediocre. Truly I reside in an unjust universe.
The article in question isn’t news reporting, it’s his opinion piece.
You want a cite to establish the fact that I feel better knowing more than less? Hows that suppossed to work? Actually, nevermind. Don’t read Calabresi. It really matters not to me.
Opinion pieces often make factual claims. Opeds in WAPO and the NYT are fact checked and edited.
I thought that Calabresi was intentionally misleading his readers when he characterized fraud as a victimless crime. In contrast, his most recent piece had a garbage opinion regarding Trump’s Fake Crimes (capitalization from original), but it was pretty clear that it was exactly that, Calabresi’s take. That’s different, very different. (He made another factual claim regarding the 1980 election which may or may not have been misleading or even a lie - it’s hard to say given the sourcing.) Cite.
If you can’t trust an opinion writer that their factual claims will be true, you need to either fact check everything they say or turn to a more reliable source to avoid wasting your time. This isn’t about conservative POVs or echo chambers - it’s about dismissing dishonest commentators and advancing actual journalism.
Moderating:
@Measure_for_Measure and @Hamlet: Let’s take the discussion re Calabresi’s reputation and arguments to a different place, please. You’re not going to solve your differences here in this thread. Thanks.
Judge Barbara jones’ letter to judge engoran regarding what she saw during her time as independent monitor.
Her conclusion is that the trump organization will continue to report incorrect or inaccurate information to third parties. They also tried to slide things past the monitor and move money about.
It will be interesting to see what judge engoran hands down on the 31st.
Footnote 6, a $48 million “loan” appeared in the records but never existed.