Good news everyone! Perlstein's at his tipping point

I've been following the release of The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan, the third book in historian Rick Perlstein's four-book history of the modern conservative movement. (I was working my way through the first two some four years ago.)

Perhaps because the right-wing smear-merchants have honed their skill set since 2010, or perhaps because they could look the other way when the truth about Goldwater and Nixon got laid out in almost quotidian detail but they're not going to sit idly by and watch anyone reduce Saint Ronnie to human scale again, the rightwing defenders of the faith are after Perlstein with everything they've got, at a level of acrimony that the first two books never excited.

It's reminiscent of the toxic gifts of Karl Rove when he was at his peak, because they're attacking Perlstein from the side of his greatest strength: They're questioning the fundamentals of his scholarship by accusing him, wildly improbably, of plagiarism. (A handy guideline established during the Clinton era: If Republicans accuse their enemies of doing something, it's a safe bet they've already been doing it themselves. We continue.)

The claim is preposterous. But then so was the swift-boating of John Kerry in 2004, and look how well that succeeded. Still, for a variety of reasons – The attackers' claims are more specific and more easily refuted with the documentation at hand? This sort of organized smear-campaign just looks and sounds (and smells) too familiar even to most of the mainstream media who will greatly the commercial and critical fate of The Invisible Bridge? – the attempts to drag the book and its author down are getting a fair amount of play, but they're not being taken very seriously, despite the aid and comfort lent by a disgraceful on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand review from The New York Times (you can easily find the link yourself).

Readers can disagree in good faith about the wisdom and utility of removing citations from the physical book itself and putting them online (Me? I'm evidently in the minority: I don't want to have to read it with my wifi tablet at my elbow, but I will.), but one thing is clear: The source notes are there, online, searchable, and click-throughable. Hence Perlstein, who seems to have been caught by surprise by this hatchet job (again, thanks so much, NYTimes.) can avail himself of the classic defense in such a case: The truth. (Plus the fundamentals of copyright law.)

You can read Slate's David Weigel's account of the general story here and the exchange of hostile and threatening letters (from Perlstein's chief attacker, currently Ann Coulter's publicist) and bemused but firm replies (from Perlstein's attornies) here.

I just want to point out one bit of data and note a historical parallel.

First, the conservative attackers can whine all they want, but Mammon is going to smile on Perlstein.

Second, there is some precedent, going back to 2003, for the situation Perlstein finds himself in, and it invites optimism:

Al Franken got the glad tidings while vacationing in Italy. He had fallen asleep reading "The Tipping Point" and mulling marketing ideas for his forthcoming "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," when a friend staying in the villa walked into his bedroom and woke him up. "Al!" he said. "You're being sued by Fox!" After a second-and-a-half of considering this, Franken responded: "Good!" Then he fell back asleep.

If Fox's intention was to break a large, undercooked ostrich egg on its corporate face while pouring streams of golden ducats into Franken's pockets, it carried out its plan to perfection. As everyone who pays attention to such matters knows by now, a judge laughed its copyright-infringement lawsuit (Fox claimed it trademarked the phrase "fair and balanced") out of court -- even adding insult to injury by warning the right-wing media behemoth that its ownership of the phrase it claimed to have spent $61 million developing was extremely dubious. And sales of Franken's book soared sky-high on the publicity, hitting #1 on Amazon's list Thursday.

Here's wishing Rick Perlstein a good night's sleep.

Good news everyone: Three reasons to appreciate Krugman, all in one NYT column

Yesterday, Paul Krugman wrote this:

Am I saying that the professional consensus is always right? No. But when politicians pick and choose which experts — or, in many cases, “experts” — to believe, the odds are that they will choose badly. Moreover, experience shows that there is no accountability in such matters. Bear in mind that the American right is still taking its economic advice mainly from people who have spent many years wrongly predicting runaway inflation and a collapsing dollar.

All of which raises a troubling question: Are we as societies even capable of taking good policy advice?

First, I believe he's absolutely right on the merits. Bad economic advice has been running the game in America and Europe for years, and its exponents have paid no price for it. With the blessing of the University of Chicago Friedmanites, the encouragement of right-wing and centrist think tanks, and the self-righteous follow-through of all the Very Important People, superstition has become nearly-indisputable truth. Despite all the evidence.

Second, the use of those quote marks around "experts" is delightfully elegant.

Finally, he didn't write All of which begs the question; he wrote All of which raises a troubling question. First, this reminds readers that Krugman knows what "begging the question" actually means, which too many intellectually lazy commentators don't. And second, it shows why eschewing "begging the question" – even if it meant what mistaken writers suppose it means – which it doesn't – makes for better writing. The usual misunderstanding of "begs the question" supposes it to mean "raises the obvious question," as if it's simply a matter of vaguely-logical sequentiality. Krugman knows that the question raised by the superstition of austerity is not some matter of this-after-that. It's a question – a point of debate – that ought to leave us troubled that it's even on the table.

Seriously. Are we able, in this age of fashionable anti-science and anti-intellectualism, to take sound advice for the common good?

Good news everyone: It didn't end in bloodshed! This time!

(Update: Ridiculous misspelling in title fixed.)

When I saw the headline this morning – "Two Guys With Guns Have Showdown On First Day Of Georgia's New 'Guns Everywhere' Law" – I thought to myself, well, that didn't take long, did it?

A "misunderstanding" between two armed men in a Georgia convenience store led to an arrest on the very day that the state's new expansive gun rights law went into effect, according to The Valdosta Daily Times.

Valdosta Police Chief Brian Childress summed the incident up for the newspaper.

“Essentially, it involved one customer with a gun on his hip when a second customer entered with a gun on his hip," Childress said.

According to the Daily Times, the first man, Ronald Williams, approached the second man in the store and demanded to see his identification and firearms license. Williams also pulled his gun from his holster, without pointing it at the second man. The second man responded by saying that he was not obligated to show any permits or identification -- then he paid for his purchase, left the store, and called the police.

Police responded to the call around 3 p.m. Tuesday, and Williams was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct for pulling his gun in the store.

But here's the thing: As I read this story, even though one of the guys drew his gun, neither of the two central figures, nor any nearby noncombatants, were injured. The reason why, as they say, may surprise you:

The unnamed fellow had a gun, but he didn't pull it. Instead he kept his cool, retreated (although I don't know if he'd use that word for getting out of the danger zone), and let the police handle it – and they did.

In other words, the fellow in the Georgia convenience store – whose name we do not know, I remind you – did the exact opposite of what George Zimmerman did that night in February 2012, whereupon the latter made himself famous.

Note that Georgia does have a so-called "Stand Your Ground" law, under which a person who feels threatened has no duty to retreat to safety but rather is allowed to open fire at the object of his concerns. That legal fact, combined with the fact that such encounters – which Georgia's "Gun Everywhere" law virtually guarantees will happen, a lot, in bars, strip clubs, sporting events, schools, and yes, convenience stores – means that the unnamed non-shooter would have had a legal defense available if he'd dived behind the beef jerky display and blasted away.

But he didn't. He retreated and called the police. And at least two persons in Georgia are alive this afternoon who might not have been otherwise.

Good news everyone.

Good news, everyone: I loved baseball ever since Arnold Rothstien fixed the World Series in 1919

(That was Hyman Roth (in The Godfather, Part II), musing wistfully about the good old days.)

It's not often I find myself agreeing with Hyman Roth. Or Newt Gingrich. As far as Newt goes, here's the last one, about 20 years ago.

But this one, all these years later, has him back on my good side. At least for the moment:

First: I have never been a sports buff. 

No, seriously. I watch the Blazers, the Timbers, and the Seahawks when they're already on, mostly because of the friends I have who do the same, and why would I want to see my friends miserable and not be able to talk about it with them? But I've always rooted for the Packers – even if I couldn't name a single player on either team – simply because the town owned them and the NFL owners hated them for that very reason. In Green Bay, there are middle class and blue collar homes from one end of town to the other with framed share certificates over the fireplace mantel next to the grandchildren and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Several months ago, I was riding down 5th Street headed west, and I realized that a pickup truck in front of me had a licence plate holder saying "I'm A Packer Stock Holder" – and I chased it for three or four blocks before it turned of at an intersection where I was blocked. I just wanted to tell the driver how much I envied him.

I suppose that it will be another twenty years until Newt has another idea that's actually good. So let's enjoy this moment while it's here.

Good news, everyone: Little George doesn't have to feel threatened anymore

No sir. He's back in his comfort zone:

On Wednesday, Florida state prosecution dropped the domestic violence charges against George Zimmerman from a November dispute with his girlfriend Samantha Scheibe.

Because the charges were dropped, there are no legal barriers preventing Zimmerman from getting his firearms back. At the time of his arrest, Zimmerman had five guns and 100 rounds of ammunition.

The pool is now open: Put a five-spot in the jar and pick when this little ALEC poster-boy has his next run-in with the police.

Ties will be decided by the time of day he's taken into custody, not when the incident occurs.

Good news, everyone: I've arrived in a Mecca of a sort

Turns out the city I'm visiting has a special little place in history I never knew about:

On this day in 1958, Robert H. W. Welch Jr. founded the John Birch Society in Indianapolis, meeting with 11 other men from various states. This national organization adopted as its mission the protection of the United States against communism.

The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis (1994)

Ah, how well I remember that "Save the Republic: Impeach Earl Warren" billboard that once stood defiantly along 16th Street on the west side.

Since those days, of course, international communism has collapsed and the society has somewhat diversified its portfolio.

And yes, there is an Encyclopedia of Indianapolis, although my source for this tidbit was a "Today in Indiana History" item in this morning's Indianapolis Star.

Good news, everyone: Well I'll be damned

And what better way to inaugurate this new p3 feature than with this news: I was wrong, and Harry Reid actually threw the ball.

True, the filibuster is only disabled for presidential appointments and judgeships below the SCOTUS level, meaning that it's still a weapon with which the Senate GOP can (and will) obstruct legislation, but it's certainly something.

Pretty much right: Charlie Pierce.

And, it must be said, the fact that it was necessary for the Senate to take this step further belies as naive the president's star-making speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Not quite so right: Robert Reich.

Turns out Harry Reid knows the only way to deal with bullies is to fight back.

Actually, the record shows that Harry Reid knows more than one way to deal with bullies, one of which is to give them your lunch money for several years before fighting back.

Still, better late than never.

Let's see what happens next.

And congratulations to Oregon's senators, especially Jeff Merkley, who's been fighting for this change, and getting the football pulled away by Reid, for some time now.