Mediocrity's Co-Pilot

Kingsfield, You...Are...A...Son...Of...A....Bitch, Or: Once Again Fighting Gale-force Windiness With Recondite Windiness!

This post has, a month later, drawn a windy response from its subject. Jesse Panuccio, at first writing at Ex Parte, now guest DJing on my month-old comments page, has taken serious umbrage with my critique:

From the comments:

It is good to know that Ex Parte is picking up some new fans. I feel your comments deserve a response. Because this interface only allows 1000 characters at a time, my response to your comment will be posted in several pieces. Please see below, and I apologize for how they are broken up:
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, as to your substantive points about the “piece:”

While perhaps my post was a bit too sarcastic and hastily written (for instance, upon second examination, I found my math was mistaken at one point: 4-3 not 5-3), it was merely a quick citation to another incidence of a baseless attack on Bill Pryor and a few other of President Bush’s appointees. You mention that this “piece is about Pryor.” I suppose you are correct, but again this seems to be about as fine and useful a truism as the piece’s assertion that had Pryor not been on the court, his vote would not have been counted. The “piece” did not discuss the case at hand in any substantive way or offer any background as to the legal issues involved. Rather, the piece simply pointed out that Pryor’s vote must have been ideologically motivated.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:21 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although you may reasonably disagree, I do not think that in a “piece” about the influence of ideological leanings on judicial voting, the fact that ¼ of the circuit did not vote along some perceived ideological bias is insignificant. This “piece” was vapid and shallow—simply another attack in a long and mean spirited smear campaign that betrays these groups for what they are—political machines and purveyors of disinformation and slander. For example, you might take a look at this Sixty Minutes piece (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/25/60minutes
/main608667.shtml) on Judge Pickering. Notice that the head of the local NAACP formed some very strong opinions on the man without knowing very much about him. I suspect something similar might go on in the civilrights.org shop.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:21 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for my “use of ‘intern.’” No harm intended to interns everywhere and anywhere as I, and many of my peers on Ex Parte, held that esteemed and illustrious position this summer. A little self-deprecation at worst. I used this term to suggest that this “piece” is not serious analysis, but rather just the type of project a lobbying group such as civilrights.org might farm out to a team of eager summer interns ready to save the world by any means necessary—a post that would be thrown up on the website with little editing and little substantive content.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that we have dispensed with that, let’s turn to your flattering ad hominem attacks.

This post was made in the context of a long conversation that has occurred on Ex Parte and between and among members of the HLS Federalist Society concerning judicial nominations (and with the background that Bill Pryor spoke at HLS last year). I did not, of course, realize that a scholar of your merit and wit would be reading and might come to the post unaware of that previous history and context and require more background before jumping to conclusions about ideological leanings, intellectual capacity, and tolerance for the ideas of others.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say the following:
“What irks me, however, is this kind of acidic half-assedness, an off-hand disdain for opposite ideas that comes across like a Scalian version of the bawdy inside-humor of a frat house party room.”

This is all very witty and I’m sure you find your own prose very flattering and erudite. I wonder, however, if the hypocrisy inherent in this statement—a statement in which you are criticizing the ideas of another—does not irk you as well.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before you defame others on your blog, I suggest you conduct a little more research. You, sir, have no basis for judging my attitude for “opposite ideas.” To boot, you have no basis to know whether I support the vote that Pryor made in this case—since the piece did not deal with the substantive issue, my criticism was not focused on the debate over whether gays in Florida can adopt.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do two very interesting and opposite things in your post. You address the merits of my post, and make a few decent points. Fair enough and I would be happy to have a true dialogue with you about them. You then, however, go on to criticize me, on the basis of one post, as being intellectually shallow and narrow-minded. In effect, you do exactly what you criticize me of doing. Other ideas “come across like a Scalian version of the bawdy inside-humor of a frat house party room.” I’m just assuming—and I could be mistaken—that you disagree with Justice Scalia (and conservatives) on many issues. However, many intelligent liberals will admit that Justice Scalia is an intellectual force to be reckoned with.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You, however, reduced him—and his “opposite ideas” to a clever and dismissive little adjective that you can chuckle at with knowing superiority and righteousness. Well, bully for you. I think I’ll take the frat house humor to the hypocritical, arrogant poo-pooing of the latte drinkers at Starbucks any day.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:26 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if you will excuse me, my Neanderthal, conformist friends and I need to slink off to a cave as we are late for keg stand. Perhaps I will come across you and band of post-modern superheroes the next time I pass an Internet café in Greenwich Village.

Good luck to you in law school. If you are actually as self-congratulatory and intellectually smug as your blog suggests, you may need it.
Jesse Panuccio | 08.23.04 - 12:26 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you feel the need to respond to this, and you needn’t, I would rather you email me directly. I have no desire to continue this with you on a blog I don’t regularly read—nor am I particularly inclined to have a long debate over a comment I quickly posted from work this summer in the context of a specific, but dated, discussion on Ex Parte.*

Jesse Panuccio

*Note the sneer of disdain and sigh of boredom at having to take the time to respond to another self-styled intellectual “superhero” who is wholly enamored with his own sense of sophistication and qualified tolerance.

It seems he's come unhinged. The original post? This:

I actually enjoy reading Ex Parte a great deal, & would think about joining a Federalist Society sometime just for the reward of a chance to argue with them on a regular basis (they seem an amusingly cantankerous bunch, & sharp, too -- they'd likely take me behind the proverbial woodshed). This post, however, from Jesse Panuccio, caught my eye in a not-so-admiring way...

...Perhaps I'm just in SuperHero Mode today, rushing to protect the innocent & not-so-innocent, but the above seems wholly unfair. After all, need only count the votes to see that 9 of the 12 justices voted along traditional party/ideological lines. Where I come from that LARGE MAJORITY does qualify -- no? -- as 'mostly'. The second part, ridiculing the 'incredible & biting'* analysis that the decision would have gone the other way if not for Pryor's presence, seems to neglect the fact that the piece is about Pryor, focused on his recess appointment, & makes what appears (to this reader) the salient point that at least one civil rights bill has been derailed by Bush's use of the recess. I'm not bemoaning the appointment, by the way. I don't like it, but it seems little more than politics as usual. What irks me, however, is this kind of acidic half-assedness, an off-hand disdain for opposite ideas that comes across like a Scalian version of the bawdy inside-humor of a frat house party room.

*Note the sneer of disdain inherent in the use of 'intern'.

Perhaps the more tactful can show me where I went overboard. By my count, however, I make fun of myself three times while offering only one derisive sneer at the piece in question. So, a couple of points:

1. I criticized only the method & rhetoric of the critique Mr. Panuccio offered. Judge Pickering's & Judge Pryor's merits notwithstanding, they're irrelevant to my point & beyond the scope of what I was remarking on. I don't disagree that many judges are unfairly tarnished before serious consideration. I also don't imply that I disagree with that fact.

2. "I did not, of course, realize that a scholar of your merit and wit would be reading and might come to the post unaware of that previous history and context and require more background before jumping to conclusions about ideological leanings, intellectual capacity, and tolerance for the ideas of others."

-- I defy anyone to find out where I've challenged the 'intellectual capacity' of anyone. No, really. Please. Too, I'm not sure what conclusion I've jumped to. I hope he elaborates. I fear he will.

3. "Although you may reasonably disagree, I do not think that in a “piece” about the influence of ideological leanings on judicial voting, the fact that ¼ of the circuit did not vote along some perceived ideological bias is insignificant."

-- Would it be safe to say that if 1/4 'not voting along ideological lines' is 'not insignificant' (what a bumble of negatives) then the fact that 3/4 did vote in predictably ideological fashion is also 'significant'. And if so, certainly worthy of a short blurb on an ideologically-inclined website? After all, didn't we start this whole mess by criticizing their focus on exactly that statistic?

4. "You say the following:
“What irks me, however, is this kind of acidic half-assedness, an off-hand disdain for opposite ideas that comes across like a Scalian version of the bawdy inside-humor of a frat house party room.”

This is all very witty and I’m sure you find your own prose very flattering and erudite. I wonder, however, if the hypocrisy inherent in this statement—a statement in which you are criticizing the ideas of another—does not irk you as well."

--Without a doubt. I'm a huge pain in the ass. And guilty of all that you say. On the other hand, I'm not writing as a member of a prestigious society at a top law school. As to whether I find my own prose 'flattering' & 'erudite', well, sure, as far as it goes. If I can't amuse myself there's not much hope of amusing others, I guess.

5. "Before you defame others on your blog, I suggest you conduct a little more research. You, sir, have no basis for judging my attitude for “opposite ideas.” To boot, you have no basis to know whether I support the vote that Pryor made in this case—since the piece did not deal with the substantive issue, my criticism was not focused on the debate over whether gays in Florida can adopt."

-A.) I don't make any claims about Florida adoption & whether one's stance on it marks one's character. B.) Before you accuse anyone of defamation you might want to make sure you understand what the word means. Perhaps you haven't covered it yet in Cambridge. Not having started law school yet, I'm still pretty sure a criticism of the tone & substance of someone's writing isn't defamation. You can tell that I'm criticizing tone, Mr. Panuccio, because I refer to acidic half-assedness...unless you think I believe you to have only 'half an ass' (which could, perhaps, be libelous). Trust me, I think you have enough 'ass' for a small republic.

6. "Other ideas “come across like a Scalian version of the bawdy inside-humor of a frat house party room.” I’m just assuming—and I could be mistaken—that you disagree with Justice Scalia (and conservatives) on many issues. However, many intelligent liberals will admit that Justice Scalia is an intellectual force to be reckoned with...You, however, reduced him—and his “opposite ideas” to a clever and dismissive little adjective that you can chuckle at with knowing superiority and righteousness. Well, bully for you. I think I’ll take the frat house humor to the hypocritical, arrogant poo-pooing of the latte drinkers at Starbucks any day.

--I reduce Scalia? By finding, in the quickly dismissive tone of your post, a parallel to the tone I find in many of Scalia's opinions? Again, Mr. Panuccio, you need to be able to differentiate between a criticism of method & a criticism of content. "Knowing superiority & righteousness"? Huh? I give Scalia all the respect in the world for what he does well. If you look here, & here you'll see that it's a bit tougher than you've noticed to explain me away ideologically. I enjoy & respect people who disagree with me. Again, & certainly there's a dead horse that's suffered much flogging on this issue, let me note that my entire criticism was with regard to tone.

7. "Now, if you will excuse me, my Neanderthal, conformist friends and I need to slink off to a cave as we are late for keg stand. Perhaps I will come across you and band of post-modern superheroes the next time I pass an Internet café in Greenwich Village.

Good luck to you in law school. If you are actually as self-congratulatory and intellectually smug as your blog suggests, you may need it...

If you feel the need to respond to this, and you needn’t, I would rather you email me directly. I have no desire to continue this with you on a blog I don’t regularly read—nor am I particularly inclined to have a long debate over a comment I quickly posted from work this summer in the context of a specific, but dated, discussion on Ex Parte.*
"
-- If only Mr. Panuccio had taken this much time on his original post. Perhaps he's offering us a moment of insight into his priorities? I can't be sure. I can, however, be sure that his reading comprehension skills seem to be unable to track nuance -- he missed the analogical relationship of how I characterized his post & fraternity-talk; he missed the "mostly" that was central to the article that drew his criticism; he overlooks my compliments toward the folks at Ex Parte only to mischaracterize my take on the group as 'Neanderthals'; & finally, & most unfortunately, he misreads my post - & it's purely textual criticism - for something far more sweeping. Nowhere do I address the intellectual merits of the Harvard Federalists. Or imply that they are 'conformists'. I was a Frat Boy, of course, which means I understand the way conversations go among the like-minded -- the too-easy picking apart of unaware outsiders for the too-easy pleasures of back-slapping/scratching & fellow-feeling. It's fine for what it's worth. But it's not worth much.

8. "Note the sneer of disdain and sigh of boredom at having to take the time to respond to another self-styled intellectual “superhero” who is wholly enamored with his own sense of sophistication and qualified tolerance."

-- I'm not sure why you feel the need to 'take the time' to respond to a post from a month & a half ago. Is there some redemption involved in rebutting an archived post in a little-trafficked blog? And what is this thing you have against coffee drinkers & NYC?

All in all, an unexpected boon to find this kind of time-bomb ticking in my Comments today. It's a shame that all the folks who are more Conservative than I (Will, Amber, Dylan, Southern Appeal et al) & who I enjoy reading & responding to, will find out now that I'm nothing but a latte-sipping NYC elitist who reduces all of his ideological opposites into Neanderthal stereotypes. What will I do with, well, just about everyone I chat with?



PostScript1: Oh, & not a chance in hell that I 'email' you back. This kind of bilge gets the open air treatment. If you want something to stay private...then deal with it privately.

PostScript2: I operate under the assumption that the students at HLS are very very bright. But whither goeth the self-awareness? Oy.

posted by Spencer @ 8/23/2004 01:40:00 PM |