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...
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
You know what's really sad though? John Edwards was enough of a dumbass to make Kaus look smart.
Also ever notice how he never weighs in on serious issues, like basically everything the Bush administration did wrong? Mickey would have you believe that the UAW provided evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
"Also ever notice how he never weighs in on serious issues"
You know that's demonstrably false, right? I mean, just search the guy's archives for posts on health care, unions, the problems of the auto industry, etc.
This is the same Mickey Kaus who argued that Destiny Child's "Pay My Bills" was proof that welfare reform worked.
OBama is responsible for Mumbo Sauce? Damn. Who knew? Makes me glad I voted for the man.
He supports the sauce in theory, but he's not going to legislate on a Federal level. State's rights.
Kaus is so typical of Slate-- and I do enjoy Slate at times-- but their whole 'contrarian for the sake of being contrarian' thing wears so thin.
Personally I would opt for the "not worth twenty seconds of my time" response, especially when the disingenuineness is so great within its multi-layered wrappings of sheer silliness, but then again, I don't have a blog to run. Chuckle away bro!
AT some point though Mickey Kaus and the phrase "disingenuous argument made in bad faith" are such redundant phrases that you don't really need to respond. Maybe we should just his name as shorthand, you could refer to a right wing troll as pulling a Mickey Kaus
Where's the Kaus link, or did I miss it?
T-NC, any excuse to include that Jay-Z clip is okay with me. Hearing it makes me smile still.