It's a been a while since I've rapped at ya', but things have been busy in my neighborhood.
This–click here–Daily Show interview with Marc Thiessen, torture apologist, sophist, and for that reason Washington Post columnist is well worth watching. Not only does this fellow advance a bunch of silly arguments (which Stewart shoots down) he whines relentlessly about not being able to talk. He got to talk just fine, it's just that he got called on his silliness.
Stewart's case I think is an interesting one. We might all agree that Thiessen's argument fail miserably on logic and facts. For instance:
Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would — and rightly so.
That analogy completely blows, to use a technical term. For starters, the lawyers worked pro bono, unlike Tom Hagen. Second, being someone's lawyer doesn't entail you endorse their alleged criminality. Third, everyone is entitled to a lawyer. Fourth, we have a nation of laws, allegedly.
But how one points this out most effectively is another matter. Arguments, for too many people in our silly televised and printed discourses, are just monologues: there is no common purpose, no shared goal, and no commonly agreed-upon rules to which we can refer to resolve our disagreements. It's nice to see someone successfully knock one of these monologues off the tracks.
Update. Media Matters beat me to the Tom Hagen reference. Drats.