Conspiracy Theories

Posted on by

The past week and a half has seen two stories in the news involving the idea of conspiracy theories and how to disprove them. Last week it was the Obama birth certificate story, and this week it’s been the death of Osama bin Laden. There have always been conspiracy theories in American history, but I can’t remember a time when the proponents of these theories have garnered so much undeserved respect.

There were many news commentators in the last couple of days who were saying that the White House should release Osama bin Laden’s death photos because there are lots of people out there who don’t believe he’s dead and putting the photos out there would prove it. The other day, CIA Director Leon Panetta said the photos should be released, because “the bottom line is that, you know, we got Bin Laden and I think we have to reveal to the rest of the world the fact that we were able to get him and kill him.” And yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham said this:

The whole purpose of sending our soldiers into the compound, rather than an aerial bombardment, was to obtain indisputable proof of Bin Laden’s death. I know Bin Laden is dead. But the best way to protect and defend our interests overseas is to prove that fact to the rest of the world.

I’m afraid the decision made today by President Obama will unnecessarily prolong this debate.

Why do people pay so much attention to conspiracy theorists these days?

There are a few possible reasons: (1) the internet; (2) the changing relationship between the government and the public, and the idea that the government must satisfy the public’s every whim; (3) the lurid desire of people in the media to see the actual photos because it will make good copy.

The internet gives conspiracy theorists a much larger platform than they used to have. And political journalists and commentators spend particularly large amounts of time online these days, so they’re exposed to the tumult of political discussion to a much greater degree than journalists used to be. They read blogs, they read the same websites as everyone else, they’re on Twitter. So this stuff is much closer to the front of their minds than it is to other people.

But look. Obama released his long-form birth certificate last week and there are still denialists out there. How about the moon landing? It was filmed, it aired on live television, and yet there are people who deny it happened. There are people who deny the reality of historical events such as the Holocaust. Why do we think the releasing of bin Laden’s death photos will satisfy anyone? There are already fake photoshopped photos of his corpse online; why would denialists believe the real photos are real?

This needs to stop. People who believe in conspiracy theories aren’t interested in discovering the truth; they’re interested in pushing a particular belief system. And their ideas are infectious, because people who don’t know the facts can be easily swayed by zealous deniers.

Obama made the right decision in not releasing the death photos. Perhaps the release of his long-form birth certificate last week played a part in his thinking; he saw that it didn’t placate the true denialists. Neither would release of the photos. All they would do is inflame people.

You can never argue with a conspiracy theorist. You’ll always lose.

OBL

Posted on by

It’s great that we got bin Laden. It certainly feels momentous. But I can’t help but feel that it’s an emotional victory more than anything else. Isn’t al Qaeda a big organization? Was bin Laden even really running it anymore? Hadn’t everyone been saying in the last few years that capturing or killing bin Laden wouldn’t really make a big difference in the “war on terror” anymore?

I turned on the TV last night and saw the boisterous, jubilant crowds cheering in front of the White House and at Ground Zero. At first it felt exhilarating to see them. But it quickly began to seem unsettling, and… I don’t know… tacky?

On the one hand, I can’t really fault people for wanting to celebrate. It’s entirely possible for people to understand that this isn’t necessarily as big a deal as it seems but to still want to go out there and cheer. It’s not my place to tell other people how they should act and what they should think.

But on the other hand, here’s how I feel: what are these stupid college kids whooping about? It’s great and all, but it’s not like we got Hitler. It’s not like we’ve been fighting a conventional war against a concrete enemy that has suddenly come to an end. It’s not like this is a video game where we’ve killed the arch villain. It’s not like this really changes much. I understand that these kids were in elementary or middle school on 9/11, and I understand that the earlier in your life that an event occurs, the bigger an impression it makes, and I understand that 10 years to a college student is much longer than 10 years to an adult. But all the celebration just seemed naive.

Maybe it’s just me. I’m not really comfortable with loud crowds engaged in whooping, rowdy displays of testosterone. It made me think of all the times I’ve ridden on NJ Transit when the train is filled with New York Rangers fans on the way to a game at MSG, wearing their talismanic hockey jerseys.

But I have to admit, I had my own less-than-rational thoughts when I saw the news: I felt good for Obama. See that, you fucking Republicans? A Democratic president did this. Democrats have balls, too. Tell me again that Barack Obama hates America, you fucktards.

Was it good to feel that way? Was it right to feel that way? Was it generous to feel that way? Not necessarily. Part of me wishes bin Laden was captured alive so that he could spend the rest of his life rotting away in solitary confinement. And no matter how much evil a person has done, it seems wrong to cheer a death.

But like those whooping college students, I too am human, and you can’t control the first thoughts that come into your head.

This isn’t a victory or the end of a war, and it’s not as important as some people think it is. But it’s still a big deal psychologically.

It does have meaning.

iPhone Tracker

Posted on by

As you might have heard, it turns out that the iPhone keeps a record of everywhere you’ve been. It’s been doing this since last summer. It’s kind of creepy, but also kind of cool, so I downloaded the iPhone tracker program by Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden that turns the data on your iPhone into a map. Here’s my map (click to embiggen):

Here’s my map for just the northeast:

I think the tracking works by bouncing signals off cell towers or something, so there are some inaccuracies (I haven’t been to New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or central New York State off the I-87 corridor recently). But as I mentioned last week, I’ve gone on an abnormally high number of trips in the last several months, so there’s a lot on here. My map reflects vacations, airport transfers, my Amtrak trip to Charlottesville, Virginia, my NJ Transit commute to and from work, our car ride to Montreal, etc.

There are two weird things, though:

(1) It shows my phone as having been in Las Vegas. I haven’t been to Las Vegas in years. But when I press the time-lapse arrow at the bottom of the screen, I see that my phone was in Vegas the same week that I bought it at an Apple Store in NYC. It must have been in Vegas before being shipped to NYC; there must be a warehouse in or near Vegas where they store and test new iPhones before shipping them around the country.

(2) I was in Alberta, Canada last summer, but that’s not reflected on the map. I think that’s because I had my phone turned off or didn’t use it or something, because I didn’t want to roam and use data. But I was in Canada again a few days ago (Montreal), and I still had roaming turned off, but that data still shows up. I must have done something differently but I can’t remember what.

Anyway… creepy, but cool.

Trips

Posted on by

Tomorrow I’m heading to Montreal for a few days in order to spend the first night of Passover with my brother’s inlaws. Once again I’m pulling out my suitcase and my toiletry kit; I’ve done so much more traveling in the last few months than I’ve done in ages, with more to come in the next few months:

October 2010 – Walt Disney World
November – Tennessee (visited Matt’s family)
February 2011 – Houston, TX (business trip)
March – Charlottesville, VA (glee club reunion)
April – Kiawah Island, SC (business trip); Montreal

Upcoming:
June – Pittsburgh, PA (business trip)
July – Santa Fe, NM (business trip); Delaware (family vacation)

I love traveling, so this is a good thing. It’s just that it’s… a lot!

Company at the NY Phil

Posted on by

Last night we saw the much-anticipated, star-studded production of Company at Lincoln Center, with music by the New York Philharmonic. It was such a wonderful experience; with a cast of such wattage, at times I didn’t know where on stage to look: should I be watching Neil Patrick Harris? Patti LuPone? Stephen Colbert? Christina Hendricks? Jon Cryer? Not to mention: Martha Plimpton, Katie Finneran, Anika Noni Rose… it was like one of those episodes of The Love Boat where you watch the opening credits and see the face of great guest star after great guest star appearing in those circles: how cool is it to see all these people performing together?

(Here’s a slide show from the first performance on Thursday night.)

Considering that much of the cast rehearsed via iPhone, it was a pretty smooth show. The singing wasn’t of uniform quality; frankly, not all of these people are known for musical performances. But the acting was terrific all around. Standouts for me were Stephen Colbert and Martha Plimpton as Harry and Sarah; Christina Hendricks as the ditzy April, her voice pitched a little higher than when she plays Joan Holloway on “Mad Men”; and Katie Finneran as Amy.

Also great was the dancing! The vaudeville second-act ensemble number, “Side By Side By Side / What Would We Do Without You?” was a blast. Celebrities are usually each the center of attention when they perform, so it was a real treat to see all these famous people perform together in a big vaudeville dance number with straw hats.

And of course much of the singing was terrific. Patti LuPone stopped the show with “The Ladies Who Lunch” — not a surprise to anyone who saw her perform the number at the Sondheim birthday concert last year, whether live or on video. (When she said “I’d like to propose a toast,” the audience roared with applause.) Anika Noni Rose was great with “Another Hundred People,” and Katie Finneran was hilarious in “I’m Not Getting Married” (although she ran out of breath a few times, and the orchestra drowned her out a bit). I still think Raul Esparza’s performance of Bobby in the Broadway revival four years ago is iconic, but Neil Patrick Harris did a great job in the role and brought a nice emotional quality to “Being Alive.”

Even better for us: our seats were upgraded. When we bought tickets a couple of months ago, we bought relatively cheap seats in the third tier. But on Tuesday, the box office called and said they needed to use our seats for video cameras, and consequently they were moving us to the orchestra. We were toward the back, so we still couldn’t really see facial expressions, but we were still closer than we’d planned to be, and it was cool to be able to sit there.

Also, it was my very first time at Avery Fisher Hall. I’m glad I finally got to visit.

It was a memorable theater experience, the sum greater than its parts. Fortunately it’s being filmed for limited theatrical release, so others will be able to see it, too. But I’m really glad I got to see it live.

Recent Theatergoing

Posted on by

It’s the spring theater season and Matt and I have seen a ton of shows lately. Matt is fortunate to be a member of TDF, which provides discount tickets to lots of shows, so we’re able to see a lot of stuff.

Here are some things we’ve seen recently:

The Book of Mormon – Best show of the season. By Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the South Park guys) and Robert Lopez (Avenue Q). Hilarious and raunchy, with an entertaining score and a surprisingly sweet storyline at its heart. Andrew Rannells is a breakout star here. Not flawless, and not everyone will like it, but it’s a breath of fresh air: a funny, original musical.

Anything Goes – Delightful (delicious, d’lovely) revival. Sutton Foster gives a performance different from Patti Lupone in the 1980s revival, but it’s great in its own way. The first act finale is a great tap-dance number, the kind you don’t see on stage much anymore. It’s got a great supporting cast, including Joel Grey, Jessica Walter and John McMartin. This show also has a budding star, Colin Donnell, as romantic lead Billy Crocker. The guy can act, sing, and dance, and he’s good-looking; where’s he been all this time?

Born Yesterday – Revival of a 1940s Garson Kanin play. The best thing about this show is Nina Arianda‘s hilarious and intelligent performance as a ditzy blonde. Arianda is also on her way to stardom.

Catch Me If You Can – This musical is the biggest disappointment of the season. With Marc Shaiman, Scott Wittman, Norbert Leo Butz, Aaron Tveit, and Kerry Butler, I was expecting theater magic; what went wrong here? The score is generic and uninteresting; Tveit (so wonderful in Next to Normal) can’t really carry this show. Shaiman and Wittman have taken a great movie and added a framing device: a 1960’s TV musical special. No idea why. It doesn’t work. Again, big disappointment. (“Disappointment” is subjective here; I expected Spider-Man to be bad and I’d heard negative buzz about Women on the Verge, so I was prepared for those. From this show I was expecting great things.)

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying – revival starring Daniel Radcliffe, a.k.a. Harry Potter. God, I was really rooting for him here, and you can tell he’s put a lot of work into his performance. He pulls off a great dance number near the end of the show, and he does a good American accent, but he’s not quite right for the part. Still, I had a good time. (I liked this more than Matt did.)

No tickets yet for Priscilla Queen of the Desert or Sister Act. Not as interested in the former since I learned it lacks an original score; would like to see the latter, though.

Coming up: Jerusalem with Mark Rylance; Company at Avery Fisher Hall with Neil Patrick Harris, Patti Lupone, Stephen Colbert, Jon Cryer, Christina Hendricks, and others (holy shit I can’t wait to see this); and The People in the Picture with Donna Murphy. Later in the spring, Tony Kushner’s The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism and Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures.

Also, some rest.

VGC 140

Posted on by

This weekend I had one of those transcendent experiences that doesn’t happen to me much anymore.

I went down to the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, Virginia, for the 140th anniversary celebration of the Virginia Glee Club, the men’s chorus I sang with in college and law school. It was my first visit to Grounds (as we call the UVa campus) since my previous visit in 2003. I lived and/or worked at UVa from 1991 to 1999, so this weekend felt like a time warp, like the events of my life had been chopped up and rearranged in a different order. Things that happened in the 1990s seemed more real and recent to me than anything that has happened in the last decade.

I took Amtrak down to C’ville on Friday morning, checked into my room at the Red Roof Inn around 2 pm, and then made a beeline for the Rotunda. I had a few hours to kill before the weekend’s festivities started, and I wanted to take a long walk to see what had changed and what had stayed the same.

I walked around Central Grounds and saw the Special Collections Library, which is new since my last visit. More importantly, I visited the three dorms I lived in during undergrad. I didn’t actually go in, but I took lots of photos.

Neurons in my brain associated with different memories kept firing in random order. I was at UVa from age 17 to age 25, so while walking around on Saturday, I’d suddenly feel 19 years old, and then 17, and then 18, then 22, and so on. Years in my life were more distinct back then, because I changed so much during that time; I was a very different person in my second year of college than I was in my first, and I was even more different during my third and fourth years than I was in either of the first two. In different years I lived in different places and had different friends and was part of different social groups. It wasn’t really until my third year that my college life began to gel.

I saw so many people this weekend that I hadn’t seen in ages, and a few that I hadn’t even remembered until this weekend. I got to reconnect with four different conductors. There was a reception. There was a concert. There was a banquet. There was lots of singing. There was lots of drinking. I ate a Gusburger at 2 in the morning. I visited the Glee Club house. I got very little sleep.

God, it was a great weekend.

And now I somehow slip back into the present.

Earthquake in Japan

Posted on by

I only recall experiencing one moderate earthquake when we lived in Tokyo. I was alone in our apartment on a Saturday afternoon, sitting at the computer, when suddenly the chair I was sitting in began shaking. Then I realized the room was shaking. It lasted maybe 10-15 seconds.

It was pretty mild; nothing fell over. But what an unsettling feeling it was. So I can’t even imagine what yesterday’s 8.9 earthquake felt like, even if Tokyo wasn’t the epicenter.

My high school in the Tokyo suburbs was apparently fine. Since the train system had stopped running, they used the school’s bus system to get everyone home that they could.

Earthquakes are freaky, even when there’s no damage. Especially if it’s a mild quake, the whole thing happens quietly, which makes it even freakier, like this unseen force is doing something to you. Jesus. You think you’re in a solid building, which you think is sitting on solid ground, and then you realize that the foundation on which you’ve lived your whole life is not solid at all.

Everything beneath us is slipping and sliding.

Supreme Court on Westboro Baptist Church

Posted on by

This morning the Supreme Court ruled that Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist “God Hates Fags” cult have a First Amendment right to protest at funerals, as long as they stay in legally designated areas and are quiet and nonviolent. Westboro had picketed the funeral of a soldier, Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. Snyder’s father then sued Westboro for damages and was awarded $2.1 million. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict.

As loathsome and despicable as the Westboro folks are, I agree with the Court on this. I tend to take a pretty strong position on the freedom of speech.

Surprisingly, the decision of the Court was not unanimous. One justice dissented: Justice Alito. He argues that Westboro was properly liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

At first I thought, wow, Alito and I have something in common: we both hate Westboro! At least Alito’s heart is in the right place!

But, no. This paragraph from his dissent really pisses me off:

Other signs would most naturally have been understood as suggesting—falsely—that Matthew was gay. Homosexuality was the theme of many of the signs. There were signs reading “God Hates Fags,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “Fags Doom Nations,” and “Fag Troops.” […] Another placard depicted two men engaging in anal intercourse. A reasonable bystander seeing those signs would have likely concluded that they were meant to suggest that the deceased was a homosexual.

Oh, heaven forbid that it should be implied that someone is gay, even falsely! What a horrible defamation.

A few paragraphs later, we see this:

In light of this evidence, it is abundantly clear that respondents, going far beyond commentary on matters of public concern, specifically attacked Matthew Snyder because (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military. … While commentary on the Catholic Church or the United States military constitutes speech on matters of public concern, speech regarding Matthew Snyder’s purely private conduct does not.

I wonder if that’s the real reason Alito was so bothered by Westboro — because of their anti-Catholic bias? There are six Catholics on the Supreme Court, and five of them didn’t let this get to them. Only Alito, who can’t seem to control himself at a State of the Union Address, took it so personally that it warped his judgment of the First Amendment.

Obama and DOMA

Posted on by

Matt has been bugging me to write something about the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending DOMA in court.

I just don’t consider it as big a deal as some other people seem to, for a few reasons.

One, contrary to what Newt Gingrich says, the administration is not suspending enforcement of the law. The law is still in place.

Two, we’re not talking about all of DOMA. We’re talking only about Section 3. If Section 3 is declared unconstitutional, the federal government has to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any state that allows them, but it doesn’t do anything about states that don’t allow them. Okay, that’s still a big step. But it’s not everything.

Three, the House can still step in to file a brief defending DOMA in court, and even if it doesn’t, independent organizations can always file amicus briefs putting forth their positions on the matter, and the court can take heed.

The ultimate decision-maker on this issue — barring DOMA repeal by Congress, which won’t happen anytime soon — will be the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court will do what the Supreme Court will do, no matter what any lawyer argues. It’s become a judicial cliché that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the only one that matters, but in this case it’s true. Although Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan were not on the Court the last time it decided a major gay rights case — Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 — we can be pretty sure where they’ll line up. Kennedy’s the wild card.

Yet in an intangible way, the administration’s decision is important. Obama is using the bully pulpit of the presidency to make a statement in favor of gay rights, and any time the topic is raised for debate, more people become convinced of the arguments in favor of equality.

It’s just a matter of time.

Photos of the Panorama of NYC

Posted on by

I had today off for President’s Day, and I decided to visit one of my favorite places in the city: the Panorama of the City of New York, at the Queens Museum of Art in Flushing Meadows Corona Park. The park was filled with freshly fallen snow.

Flushing Meadows Corona Park

I hadn’t been to the Panorama in a few years. Since my last visit, I’ve moved to the Upper West Side/Morningside Heights, so on this trip I spent a lot of time looking at the buildings around that area, but I spent more than an hour circling the whole Panorama.

I took a ton of photos of all five boroughs. I’ve labeled some of the distinguishing features in most of the photos.

My Pop Music Gap

Posted on by

We watched a little bit of the Grammys last night. I’m embarrassed to say that it was only the second time I’d purposely seen part of the Grammys — the first time being last year.

The Grammys have always confused me. Song of the Year, Record the Year, Album of the Year? (Here are the differences.)

Plus, I’ve never been all that knowledgeable about pop music. Take an artist, a title, and how a song sounds: I often only know, at most, two out of three. I could tell you who sings a song but I have no idea what the song sounds like, or I know who sings a particular song but I don’t know the name of it, or I know the name of a song but I have no idea who sings it. This is true of tons of songs from the ’70s and ’80s that I’ve been hearing since I was a kid.

For instance: last week on Glee, they performed “Silly Love Songs” by Wings. The only part of the song I knew was an excerpt from a song medley in Moulin Rouge. Or at least I thought that was the only part I knew. When they got to the chorus (“I… love… you…”) I realized, “Oh! This is THAT song? I love that song!” And yet I had no idea what it was called or that it was sung by Paul McCartney and Wings.

I don’t know why this is the case. It’s probably because I never watched much MTV growing up.

There are also lots of songs that I first encountered by hearing them sung by college a capella groups. I’d hear an a capella version of a song over and over — by seeing the group perform it often or buy owning the album –and then one day I’d hear the original song on the radio, and it would sound so weird with instruments.

Today my knowledge of pop music comes mainly from two places: Saturday Night Live and Glee. Honestly I don’t think I’d know who Katy Perry was otherwise.

At least these days I have the excuse of being over 35.

Dirty Dirty Mozart

Posted on by

So I’m telecommuting from home today, and I’m listening to some Mozart on iTunes that I’ve recently downloaded. This really cool piece comes on that I’ve never heard before. It’s a round, and it’s sung by a men’s chorus.

I’m too busy with work to check and see what it is. But later I take a break, and I find the piece in iTunes and listen to it again. The title’s in German, so I look it up on Google.

The title is Leck mich im Arsch.

It translates as Lick me in the ass.

Nice.

Tax Refunds are Bad

Posted on by

It’s tax time, so everyone is figuring out whether they get a refund or whether they owe some taxes. While it’s great to get a refund, and it’s a bummer to have to owe the government, you’re really better off owing something.

Why? Because when you get a tax refund, you’re not really getting a gift of money. You’re getting a refund of money that should never have been taken out of your paycheck in the first place. It is what it says: a refund of money you’ve already paid and shouldn’t have paid. The extra money that was taken out of your paycheck over the course of the year is money that you could have kept in a savings account and earned interest on. Or if you don’t have a savings account, it’s money that you could have used to buy groceries or other essentials.

Meanwhile, if you do your taxes and find out that you owe money, that means you’ve had the benefit of holding onto that money for the past year, earning interest on it, and so on, when it should have been taken out of your paycheck all along.

The only way it’s a bad thing is if you weren’t planning to owe money and you’ve already spent it and therefore can’t pay it. Or if you’ve already mentally “spent” your refund. Or if you owe too much money and the IRS charges you a penalty.

Psychologically, yeah, it’s much cooler to get some unexpected money from the IRS. But rationally, owing money instead of getting a refund isn’t as bad as it seems. So don’t feel too bad about it!

Being Erica

Posted on by

My new favorite TV show is a Canadian series called Being Erica. We just finished watching the first three seasons, and I adore it.

It involves two topics I’m interested in: time travel and therapy. The main character is Erica Strange, a 32-year-old Jewish woman in Toronto who, one day when everything in her life is going wrong, meets a mysterious man who offers to be her therapist. He has Erica write a list of all the regrets from her past, and in each episode he sends her back in time to relive — and try to change — one of those regrets, which usually has some connection or parallel to what’s currently going on in her life. It’s sort of like Quantum Leap meets My Name is Earl.

The show is more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy, though. Erica doesn’t always succeed in changing her past. Sometimes the thing she regrets winds up happening to her in a different way, and sometimes she’s compelled to act the same way she did originally just because of who she is, and sometimes changing the regret leads to unexpected consequences.

Almost every episode makes me think about my own life. I have a few things I really regret, and it’s nice to have the fantasy of being able to go back and change them. But you can’t really change your past. You couldn’t have done things differently than you did: you were who you were at the time, and you had no way of knowing how things would unfold. I wish I hadn’t come out to my parents when I was 19, because they reacted terribly, and I wasn’t prepared to deal with that, and I wound up going back in the closet until I was 24 and wasting the prime sexual years of my life. But there’s no other way it could have happened. My intentions were good: to be open and honest with my parents about something in my life that was important to me. I just had no idea that I was so psychologically ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of telling them.

Anyway…

Being Erica is a terrific show that slowly expands on its premise over three seasons, plays around with its own formula, and goes in unexpected directions.

Erica is played by the immensely appealing Erin Karpluk. The show’s also got a great supporting cast, including the adorable Tyron Leitso, who played the bartender on the unjustifiably short-lived Wonderfalls and who reminds me of a young Matthew Fox.

If you’re interested in time travel, therapy, Canada, Judaism, hot guys, whatever, I totally recommend this show. I hope there’s a fourth season.

Brooks on Lieberman

Posted on by

David Brooks unsurprisingly praises Joe Lieberman in his column this morning, and it’s a mess of muddled thinking.

He lauds Lieberman as a man of courage, independence, and integrity. But then he says that if the Senate Democrats had taken away his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, he might have left the Democratic caucus and voted different on a whole host of issues.

If Lieberman had not been welcomed back by the Democrats, there might not have been a 60th vote for health care reform, and it would have failed.

There certainly would have been no victory for “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal without Lieberman’s tireless work and hawkish credentials. The Kerry-Lieberman climate bill came closer to passage than any other energy bill. Lieberman also provided crucial support or a swing vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the stimulus bill, the banking bill, the unemployment extension and several other measures.

So, wait. Joe Lieberman is a man of “courageous independence of mind.” Except that if he hadn’t gotten his way, he apparently would have voted against health care reform, don’t ask, don’t tell, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the stimulus bill, the banking bill, and unemployment benefits extensions.

Wait, but Brooks also says there’s no evidence that Lieberman’s voting record since 2006 has been based on bitterness at being rejected by liberal voters in 2006.

So Joe Lieberman is a man of courage and independence and there’s no evidence that his voting record since 2006 has been based on bitterness. But if the Democrats had stripped him of his chairmanship, he would have voted opposite the way he really believes, out of pettiness and bitterness.

So which is it?

It’s too bad David Brooks never responds to any of his critics.