What is Wrong With Instapundit
In the comments to this thread, a reader asks:
Ok, I seriously don’t understand the hate for Instapundit. Like many blogs out there, I don’t agree with everything said on it, but by and large it is one of the most intelligently written and decently researched journals I read. I see nothing but *hyuk hyuk* stupidity when it comes to comments against Instapundit, but I have yet to see one solid accusation of any sort. Please, stop telling me I should hate it and tell me what is wrong with it.
I am only too happy to oblige this request.
The trouble with Instapundit isn’t that he’s conservative, or that he supports the war in Iraq, or that he writes things that I frequently disagree with. There are plenty of center-right bloggers out there- from the Belgravia Dispatch to Dan Drezner to the kids at Reason– whose views I don’t usually share, but whose opinions are generally based within the bounds of reality. Alas, InstaGlenn’s posts often fail to meet such criteria, which is precisely why I find his blog to be unreadable nonsense.
Now, I’ll admit that Insty is a lot more civilized than many other bloggers out there, in that he doesn’t call people nasty names like “cobag” or “cum guzzling ass-fuck monster twat.” And unlike Dale Franks at Q&O, he doesn’t fantasize about watching his political enemies being dragged naked through the streets and strung up from lamp posts. That being said: despite his “civilized” tone and pedantic pretensiousness, Glenn Reynolds is a man with some genuinely crackpot ideas.
His kookiest idea- and the one that he posts about most frequently- is that the Iraq war has been going along just fine, and the only reason a majority of Americans now believe it was not worth fighting is because of the malevolent and biased reporting of the dreaded information hegemon known as the mainstream media. Indeed, Glenn believes that the wicked MSM has recently grown so powerful that it now bears primary responsibility for any American defeat in Iraq:
The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don’t, a lot of people will blame the media. […]
Others write that if we lose the war it won’t be the press’s fault, but the fault of Chimpy McHitlerburton. Well, maybe. But even so, that won’t change the fact that a press that looks in many ways as if it’s rooting for defeat won’t make an appealing scapegoat for a lot of people.
Try wrapping your head around the many layers of lunacy on display here.
[Gavin adds: To be fair with this quote, what Reynolds is doing here is indulging in one of his famous smirking, yet plausibly-deniable half-statements. He’s not saying that the media would actually be responsible for a defeat in Iraq (whatever ‘defeat’ is supposed to mean at this point), but saying that if a mob of pitchfork-waving villagers should happen to attack them for it, then well, you reap what you sow. The clever part is that Reynolds himself has been stirring up that mob for years.]
Reynolds casually shrugs off the idea that the Commander-in-Chief of America’s armed forces- you know, the man who actually led us to war in the first place- should be held at all accountable for the war’s outcome. No, instead the fault for failure lies with the vile liberal press who only report on the various bombings, kidnappings and beheadings that occur on a daily basis, while neglecting to note that a school got painted somewhere.
Why do the media focus so much on the negative news coming out of Iraq? Because they want America to fail! Why do they want America to fail? Because, as Insty himself tells us, they’re basically on the side of the enemy. Why has every reporter in the American media betrayed their country, you ask? Who knows! And it doesn’t matter, because every single person in the dread MSM exhibits these traitorous tendencies, from the objectively pro-Saddamites at the New York Times to the commie pinkos who write for the Economist:
Just look at that cover! Where are the images of Iraqi children stepping into their freshly-painted schools? More importantly, what’s up with the “Iraq at war with itself” caption? Don’t those lilly-livered pacifist pansies at the Economist know that the possibility of an Iraqi civil war was simply manufactured by the MSM???
At any rate, the bottom line is that liberals should not think of Glenn Reynolds as a moderate simply because he doesn’t hate gay people. While it’s true that he strays from right-wing orthodoxy on many issues, most notably gay rights and abortion, many of his beliefs are truly wingnutty, and we should recognize as such and denounce them the same way we denounce the ideas of Jerry Falwell. For more than any other blogger, Glenn is responsible for creating the titanium bubble that encases much of the right-wing blogosphere. Inconvenient facts are summarily dismissed as the result of biased research or polling, or the work of a malevolent media that is basically on the side of the enemy.
If you’re still not convinced, here’s a list of Glenn’s loonier moments. Any additions are welcome in the comments:
1.) Glenn advocates arming proxy armies in Africa to fight a war against France:
Sooner or later, the United States will decide that “you’re for us or against us” applies to France, too. Proxy war can go both ways, and the French have more enemies, and fewer resources, than we do.
For a start, we should start encouraging pro-democracy movements in Francophone Africa. And arming them. But that’s just a start.
2.) Glenn calls the anti-war movement objectively pro-Saddam:
I think that this “pressure of public opinion” language is a recognition by Saddam that the “anti-war” movement is objectively on his side, and not neutral. Of course, the old CIA would have just dusted Hans Blix’s room with a few anthrax spores. But we don’t do things like that now.
UPDATE: Via email, I learn that Jim Henley and Hesiod are unhappy with the remark about the antiwar movement being Saddam’s ally. But the quote in the story seems to me to indicate that Saddam sees it that way. And I think he’s right.
3.) Glenn writes that the war on terror will fail if Bush doesn’t start “vigorously invading” more Middle Eastern countries:
If Bush’s effort here fails, it won’t be because the antiwar critique of bloodthirstiness and warmongering is correct. It will be because Bush hasn’t been vigorous enough in toppling governments and invading countries in the region. What happens with Syria in the next little while may answer that question.
4.) And my personal favorite: Glenn’s views on genocide:
Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide — unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That’s what happens when two societies can’t live together, and the weaker one won’t stop fighting — especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it’s important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don’t, the military strategy we’ll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond “vigorous.”
You really have to wonder about the moral compass of a man who believes that genocide can be “provoked.”
At any rate, Mr. Pro-Insty Reader, I hope that answers your question.
It’s my understanding that the natives asked General Amherst for those blankets.
Yes, I remember well the tales of American Indians refusing to stop fighting and targeting the women and children of White America. Who can forget the Trail of Tears, when decent European-Americans were forced from their ancestral homes to live in uninhabitable swamps? Or when American Indians gave European settlers blankets infected with smallpox? Glenn Reynolds is a fucking moron. He doesn’t seem to realize that both of his “genocide” examples are situations where invading, imperialistic colonists chose to wipe out indigenous populations. Way to cast us in the “good guy” role, instadipshit.
I always like to haul out this URL during these discussions:
http://instapundit.com/archives/013211.php
Instapundit muses dreamily about whether we should fund terrorists to murder European civilians.
Notice the date, too.
Rumsfeld Says Media Are Either Allies or Dupes of Al Qaeda
Washingtonpost.com: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld today presented an upbeat report of the conflict in Iraq and said he agrees with the commander of the U.S.-led coalition, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., that the news media has exaggerated the
Insty is cagey. Most of his posts are of the “troubling if true” variety, which lets him say stuff without it being him that actually says it. His musings about Israel and America funding terrorist attacks on Europe are similar — after all, he never comes out and says we should do it; he’s just saying Europe ought to be a little concerned that it might happen.
“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
By the way:
UP
Is Glenn Instapundit a Saddam supporter? He says it right there: “I think he’s right.” Troubling if true.
I was wondering about that comment, too, but you may be wasting your time. I think mastergourd already knew all of this and was just being a putz (and by that I don’t mean I think he, personally, is a putz, but rather that he has some pretty putz-like ideas concerning S,N! and InstaGlenn).
Danny beat my slow waddle to it, but “I think he’s right”? Who’s siding with the enemy here?
As far as UT’s Own’s lovely dreams of making our own mass graves someday: How can he write sickening offal like that and still claim to give a crap about Darfur? Oh, I see – like most libertarians he said “civilized societies” when he meant “economic superpowers.” Same diff.
Insty is cagey. Most of his posts are of the “troubling if true” variety, which lets him say stuff without it being him that actually says it.
Yep, you nailed it like Digby, amigo. Insty’s weasily passive-aggressive threats drive me up the wall.
I should start ending all my posts with things like “It’d be a shame if people starting believing that Glenn Reynolds enjoyed screwing goats with Michelle Malkin’s penis.”
Brad, don’t forget:
“glennuendo” The act of drawing a darkly ominous inference from an opponent’s failure to discuss a political issue.
Personally, I find his “insights” to be few and far between while wading through one-line posts that link to other sites, talks about middle-aged-men things like “the comfy couch revolution” and posts on his ab-fab sportscar. Well, that was when I last really delved in there.
The Indians “provoked” us?
What a piece of shit.
Oh, now I remember: they bit their thumb at us European folks, from across the Atlantic. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Heh.
Indeed.
Read the whole thing.
Glennuflecting?
Doesn’t the use of “decently researched journal” and “instapundit” in the same sentence immediately cause some sort of space/time collapse? Unless something like “not to be confused with” is between them, or course.
Mebbe it’s just me, but I think “research” means more than linking to somebody and saying, “Hmmm. Could be true!” IMO that’s why Instapundit deserves all the scorn, ridicule, abuse and scatology he gets – he PRETENDS at research, he MAKES A FACADE of research, but in reality he does squat. Just enough to make the illiterate fans of Fox News fell Reeel Smerrt.
Indeed. Courtesy of Chase Me Ladies:
“The Instapundit: a master of the bore’s craft”
Heh.
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2005/03/bores-craft.html
Read the whole thing.
(Did I already say indeed?)
Indeed^2.
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2006/01/instapundit.html
Heh^2^2.
Don’t forget being disinglennuous or displaying disinglennuity, now a required section on the Tennessee Bar Exam.
Interestingly, his hatred of all things MSM doesn’t keep him from appearing on MSNBC on the regular…
“Now, I’ll admit that Insty is a lot more civilized than many other bloggers out there, in that he doesn’t call people nasty names…”
I hate to sound like a sycophantic lickspital, but this is Brad R. putting forth effort to be balanced, fair and intellectually honest. Hello? Many of you here could take a lesson from him.
Actually, not calling people nasty names already puts Instapundit on a higher evolutionary level than so many folks out there in the polluted blogosphere. Many have abandoned self-restriant, self-composure, respect for fellow human beings, and, last, but not least, temperance (and I’m sorry to break it to you, Temperance, but temperance is much more than just a screen name).
BLT, Insta doesn’t insult you directly, he just links approvingly to people who do. Disturbing if true.
Heh, indood…
..oh, fuck…I choked.
After reading the post (including the shades-of-30s-Germany part about genocide) we get this:
Actually, not calling people nasty names already puts Instapundit on a higher evolutionary level than so many folks out there in the polluted blogosphere.
So it would be a shame to ever think that advocacy of genocide is ever somehow worse than a true evil like name-calling, hm?
I’ll take a million posts full of “douchbag” and “fucktard” and “ranch-eating assmuncher” that exhibit some modicum of humanity than another single post that hides vast, dark, and incomprehensible sickness behind a veneer of mild and respectable language.
Talk about moral relativism, to think that mere politeness excuses vileness and evil. Disgusting.
hate to sound like a sycophantic lickspital…
Too late.
So it would be a shame to ever think that advocacy of genocide is ever somehow worse than a true evil like name-calling, hm?
Heh, indeed, disturbing if true, and whatnot.
Well, Pooh, then I guess there is still room for improvement, isn’t there? I suppose not everyone is capable of being as respectful as you and I.
hate to sound like a sycophantic lickspital…
“Too late.”
And all too true.
As for advocacy of genocide, and name-calling, Random, I hope that some day civilization will have advanced to the point where we don’t need either one. Historically, genocide, and the advocacy thereof, has often started out with a few seemingly harmless episodes of name-calling.
genocide, and the advocacy thereof, has often started out with a few seemingly harmless episodes of name-calling.
Now that’s what I call grade-A choice moral-equivalence, very well done sir.
I wouldn’t say the two are equivalent, Pooh, but neither are desirable. Name-calling certainly doesn’t accomplish anything of value, and a reckless choice of words can easily escalate a volitile situation and in many cases, it has fanned the flames of hatred and has contributed to an exceleration in violence.
Dr. BLT, is he really that advanced? Consider that he calls people like myself objectively pro-Saddam and traitors who are “on the other side”.
Well sure, though I’d suggest that if we’re at the point where a little name calling is all it will take, the name calling isn’t exactly the problem.
At least with a nutcase like Malkin, you know where they’re coming from. Professor Heh-Indeedy is far worse, in my opinion, because he legitimizes just about any obnoxious concept with noises approximating sweet reason.
Sully the Pooh is in the same league, but he’s not nearly as good at it.
Typical Instapundit post:
There is a report stating that in the hours before the war, Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction were moved into Syria by American ecoterrorists who hate George Bush. Troubling if true. [Link to a WorldNetDaily article about a psychic who gets coded messages from God through his toaster.]
And that is why I find it so troubling that the dreaded mainstream media always cites Instapundit as the epitome of blogging, and gets a quote from Glenn at least once a week.
“lickspital”
What is that, a really speedy ER?
Pooh, don’t respond to sandwich dude, he’s real lonely and is going to tell people that you are best friends with him.
How will you live with the shame?
Actually, not calling people nasty names already puts Instapundit on a higher evolutionary level than so many folks out there in the polluted blogosphere. Many have abandoned self-restriant, self-composure, respect for fellow human beings, and, last, but not least, temperance (and I’m sorry to break it to you, Temperance, but temperance is much more than just a screen name).
Posted by: Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger | March 8, 2006 05:01 AM
Yeah? Fuck off, misbegotten spawn of Satan.
Are the rest of you comfortable with this form of hate speech? If such a comment as the above were regurgitated on valuable blog space at a conservative site, and directed at a liberal visitor, I would go out of my way to make sure the visitor understands that not all conservatives are that ignorant, cruel and abysmally lacking in class.
Others who have gone as low as you in the past, Anonymous, have found that there are those on this site who will not let the good name of liberalism be sullied by one person who takes the low road. They have courageously put political differences aside and have come to the defense of a right-winger like myself. That is what has restored my faith in liberalism and those are the good people who keep me coming back even in the face of the sort of verbal abuse you are so quick to dish out.
Whether those good people come choose to come to my defense at this point or not, I know that the support is out there. There are those here who do not take kindly to trying to bully somebody off the site simply because they hold different political views.
“S.pawn o.f S.atan”?
Duh!? There’s an S.O.S. in there that, as an observant shrink, I should have been perceptive enough to pick up on.
Anonymous, just go ahead and let me know the general area where you live and I’ll hook you up with a good psychiatrist and a good anger management group.
Oh! Oh! Let me try!
I hate coming to the party late, but how about…
Glenn-tacular
Glenn-tastic
stu-Glenn-dous
Glenn-gasmic
Glenn-ticular fortitude
perform Glenn-atio
ejacu-Glenn-ing
Hey, this is actually fun.
not all conservatives are that ignorant, cruel and abysmally lacking in class
True, but the ones who advocate genocide, and their apologists, aren’t among them, no matter how polite they speak. You apparently don’t see what your pretenses fail to mask.
There are those here who do not take kindly to trying to bully somebody off the site simply because they hold different political views.
Perhaps so, again, but if apologism for advocacy for genocide isn’t a rank offense against humanity worthy of ostracism, then I’m not sure what would be.
Besides, I’ve seen no evidence of this sort of putsch; the “I’m persecuted” thing holds no water.
It’s not gone unnoticed that you have not either denied or explained your apologism for advocacy of genocide, to wit, stating that such horrid behavior is somehow of higher evolutionary level than those name-callers. I’m sure noone here takes kindly to such rot.
You’ve gone way over the line. That you can’t even seemm to fathom that speaks volumes.
The appropriate response would have been an apology, but that would involve humbling yourself, something I’m not sure you’re capable of.
I openly condemn genocide (always have), suicide, homicide and name-calling. Cheap shots, hate-speech and vulgarity, offered by someone who hides behind “Anonymous” is not nearly as bad as genocide, but at the very least it’s extremely cowardly, and extremely uncool.
PS: If you’re referring to my statement about the propsect of liberalism being wiped off the face of the earth, notwithstanding the fact that I was kidding, an -ism is an ideology, not a person, ,and not a group of people. Hence, it takes an ideological contortionist to turn that into genocide.
What I’d really like wiped off the face of the earth (and you can quote me on this) is hatred of all kind, prejudice, ignorance, intolerance, and blatant disregard and disrespect towards fellow human beings. These poisonous elements cross all party lines and all ideological lines.
Personally, DR. BLT — You would get a meaningful response if you ever posted anything besides a complaint. There are two choices for a Dr. BLT response: 1) Oh, if only you weren’t all so mean to me or 2) yes, that is a good point here is a song that shows I agree. On the rare occasions you enter into the conversation it always has one of your songs as an example and, much like many here, I find more than one proffered song a week a bit like begging. That would be analogous to every comment I left here referencing a post on my blog instead of just summarizing it here.
Most of the time you just come across as a troll in the old sense of the word (making every thread about you) and that becomes even more frustrating.
(self-plagiarized from a similar comment in a dead S,N! thread from a day or two ago)
BLT, the martyr act wears thin rather quickly. You made your point 6 posts ago.
No one noticed this?As for advocacy of genocide, and name-calling, Random, I hope that some day civilization will have advanced to the point where we don’t need either one.
“Need”?
“Pro-Saddam”? Who would that possibly include?
“Saddam! Saddam! He’s our guy!” (Inadvertantly true, that)
And does Saddam still have a side to be on? I think he’s out of the game. One could say “pro-Iraq”, but the people who would like to see somewhat less than everyone in Iraq killed would get confused with the people who would like Iraq to oust the occupying forces.
Yeah? Fuck off, misbegotten spawn of Satan. Posted by: Anonymous
You’ve gone way over the line. That you can’t even seemm to fathom that speaks volumes. Posted by: Anonymous
Cheap shots, hate-speech and vulgarity, offered by someone who hides behind “Anonymous” is not nearly as bad as genocide, but at the very least it’s extremely cowardly, and extremely uncool. Posted by: Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger
Just so you know, I was the first Anonymous above(Fuck off Mr. A). I did not intend to post without my handle, I was on a different machine and forgot to type it in. Also, I am deeply offended that someone saw fit to copy my Anoymous identity (Over the line Mr. A), and indignantly request that he or she self-copulate.
And Dr. BLT, or should I say Dr. Whiny McWhineson, when I posted my oh-so-rude comment to you, did you perhaps notice that I had directly quoted your comment where you were pleading for increased civility? In a humorous thread on a humorous blog? Did it not occur to you that I was poking fun? Was the “misbegotten spawn of Satan” crack too subtle for you? Perhaps my humor was not appreciated; I was not insulting you directly, I was making a merry jape at your disdain for vulgarity. Asswipe.
I’m working on an article entitled “Sophistocated Liberal Love on a Left-wing Blog Site.”
Do any of you mind if I quote you in my article? I promise I won’t take your comments out of context. I further promise that I will openly acknowledge my overly zealous advocacy of my own songs, and my penchant for harping upon my pet peeves: ruthless, thoughtless, ad hominem attacts; vile adolescent bullying tactics; outright slander, and plain old low-class cheap shots that are so replete at this site.
Also, I’m striving to be fair and balanced, so besides the clever, often witty threads offered by Brad R., Gavin & company, and a few choice comments by a few select individuals like Dan Someone, Marq, mmm…lemonheads and couple of other noteworthy exceptions, can any of you offer any signs of intelligent life that have appeared at this site in the past year?
Anybody else think a lot of the things Dr. BLT posts would be excellent titles for porn in the back room of a wingnut web site?
“Sophistocated Liberal Love.”
Watch these ivy-league Professors’ do Perverted Things in their High-Faluting, Sophisticated Ways.
“Escalate a Volitile Situation”
Oh, yeah, baby. Escalate! Escalate! A little to the left! There! There!
“Sycophantic Lickspital”
Somehow, I think of Atlas Shrugged and Glenn in this one.
Oh well, maybe it’s just me.
Insta doesn’t insult you directly, he just links approvingly to people who do.
And he doesn’t spout the worst bullshit lies on his blog, he just links to people who do. And then says ‘well, saying “read the whole thing” isn’t an endorsement.’
That’s the definition of disinglennuousness.
Wow, it’s taken me under a week at this site and I can already tell who the resident passive-aggressive wanker is…
I always wonder why Instacracker gets off scot-free regarding the way he runs his little “home business” out of his office at the University of Tennessee. Isn’t he “on the clock” most of the day? Yet there he sits, wasting taxpayer-funded resources, pecking out “hehs” and “indeeds” for his blog – which used to haul in a ton of money through his advertising, and now hauls in a ton of money from his affiliation with Jammybottoms “Media.”
Could, say, the head of the Women’s Studies Dept. at UoT do the same with such a deafening silence from her superiors? Troubling if true…
“lickspital”
What is that, a really speedy ER?
No, that’s a Lickety-splital. And I’m going to trademark it.
My previous chains of walk-in clinics, “Dunkin Doctors”, ran into certain legal problems, as did “Doc in the Box”, and “KMD”.
Damn lawyers….
Anonymous, you’ve now revealed exactly what sort of stuff your mind is fixated upon. No wonder you choose to remain anonymous.
More power to you, in your quest to capitalize upon my words, Davis X Machina. At least you’re not trying to misquote me or take my words out of context in a desparate attempt to discredit me, like somebody else around here.
I’m still waiting for volunteers who don’t mind being quoted in my article. Otherwise, I’ll have to simply quote you anonymously. Also, in the interest of fairness, I’m also waiting patiently for signs of intelligent life at Sadly, No,(besides the small, rare examples I’ve already mentioned).
You mustn’t be uncivil while I rape you up the ass.
It’s all blogaganda.com
Insty outsources his wingnuttery. That way he can blame some other frothing web-footed colostomy clog for something if it turns out to be troublingly not true.
invective–it’s what for breakfast.
heh.
indeedy.
insults are good when they are a) funny, and b) make a point about the person being insulted. well worth it.
There is no more cowardly man than reynolds–he is the perfect representative of the modern republican, sitting in a pool of his own pee worrying about the bad man in the closet and will the new fascist government come and save me!? i whispered about the bad man just loud enough so that the microphone i allowed to be installed in my house would pick up my mewlings and the anti-terror force could be here right-quick…
and he calls himself a libertarian to boot. i gotta go vomit.
He generally lets others express his most unhinged fantasies,but occasionally he slips. Here’s some exerpts of a post of his on the Palestinians (all words are his own):
thanks for the clip Joel. Scary how someone with such approving posts about genocide also has posts about an entire people being “our enemies”. Scary but not surprising. I guess all we need now is a little name-calling.
If such a comment as the above were regurgitated on valuable blog space at a conservative site, and directed at a liberal visitor, I would go out of my way to make sure the visitor understands that not all conservatives are that ignorant, cruel and abysmally lacking in class.
Sorry to question your credentials, Dr BLT (boring, lame and trite?) but first you’d have to find a conservative site that permits comments. The demigods of the Right Blogistan rarely deign to engage their readers.
Spoken like a master of projection, Paul. That’s a psychologist’s version of “I know you are, but what am I?”
And BTW, Paul, with the “boring, lame and trite” label, and you’ve questioned my initials, not my credentials.
Glenn-tacular
You forgot “Glennocide”. n. Genocide done by nice people who have been provoked, so it’s OK.
You win, I nominate you for the Cobb for best troll. Well played.
(If this were a British soccer match, the fans would be singing “Are you Althouse in disguise?”)
Every genocidal murderer and terrorist out there has been “provoked” and is merely “retaliating” for some wrong. No one ever says “I’m abusing you because I’m a horrible person”; the destruction and suffering is always for some greater good.
Glenn’s an average person and sees nothing wrong with such common, crass thinking.
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/002221.html
Sorry, Doctor: let me be more clear.
Setting aside the notion of valuable blog space at a conservative site [heh. indeed.], please cite someone on the conservative side of things with the reach of InstaGoober who has an open comments policy.
I’m surprised no one got here first: “Watch your fucking mouth!” and “Don’t use that goddamn tone with me!”
Because, you know, civility and vulgarity aren’t mutually exclusive, nor are civility and anonymity, but civility and charitable interpretation of your interlocutor are.
give up guys. Dr BLT is far too clever for us. his witty retorts are too devastating.
There are distinct disadvantages associated with an open blog site such as this one. One has to sift through so much garbage under the comments section, for example, to get to anything intelligent, original, creative, or clever.
So you really think I’m boring, Paul. Think about how boring it would be if everyone just spewed out the same old liberal groupthink? Why don’t you examine the threads where I’ve offered comments, or my music has been featured in the thread, check out the activitiy level, and then compare them to threads where I haven’t offered comments and my music has not been featured. Then ask yourself again just how boring I am. I’ll admit, I’m no three-ring circus, but at least I’ve managed things up a bit.
I can say with pride, I’ve never read a single InstaPundit post. Truly. I’ve never called Dr. BLT a whining pecksniff either but, then again, this IS my first comment here.
Well, BLT, you never explained how labeling everyone to the left of John McCain a (all verbatim Instapundit quotes) “objectively Pro-Saddam” “traitors” “on the other side” is sophisticated.
Now, your justification for the Perfesser’s BS will probably involve sophistry, but I don’t think that’s quite teh same thing.
Looks like you’re off to a great start, Ping Wong. Don’t let them corrupt you or turn you into an intolerant, cynical hater.
scarshapedstar: I’m sorry, but I am not here as an Instapundit apologist. I don’t agree with everything that goes on or everything that is said over there.
But, I’m not one to throw the baby out with the bath water, so I pointed out one of the strengths of the site, one that had already been pointed out in the thread by Brad R.
Historically, genocide, and the advocacy thereof, has often started out with a few seemingly harmless episodes of name-calling.
Let me get this straight. Your defense for railing against bad language and ill manners here is to say that it might lead to *genocide*?!? And in comparison to a post that actually *did* condone genocide?!?
That’s nuts! That’s as crazy as having the US Army attack a nation that *might* have activites that *might* be used eventually to create weapons they *might* want to use against us, and not going after the people who actually *did* attack –
Hey, wait a minute….
Pehaps it’s best to address these matters separately, a1. Genocide “bad language,” and “ill manners,” while all undesirable, are certainly not in any way morally equivalent, as I’ve previously made clear.
Can we agree on this a1?: That it is best for adults to remain civil when interacting with one another, and not to resort to cheap shots, “ill manners,” “bad language,” or name-calling. At the very least it drives wedges between people, fills the blogosphere up with negative energy, and perpetuates ill will.
BTW, I’m not here as an Iraq-war apologist either, and, in fact, I’m taking some time to re-evaluate my views on this war, and on war in general.
That it is best for adults to remain civil when interacting with one another, and not to resort to cheap shots, “ill manners,” “bad language,” or name-calling. At the very least it drives wedges between people, fills the blogosphere up with negative energy, and perpetuates ill will.
I don’t think we can. Cheap shots are fun, and are a good way to merely blow off steam. Besides, I would say at most it drives wedges…as I said earlier if a little name-calling pushes a situation over the edge, the name calling isn’t the problem.
But while we’re talking about things we could all maybe agree on, how about b1: at the very least we should not act in morally condescending, dismissive manner towards people we claim to want to engage. At the least, it makes people angry and causes them to violate hypothesis a1. And that could lead to snarking, and god forbid, some laughter.
Yeah, sure, it’s all fun and games until you are at the receiving end of it. I’d like to see how many of you would be laughing if the tables were turned.
For the record, I’m also against acting in a morally condescending, dismissive manner. If I have said anything to anyone that they can honestly say came across in this way (and they are not simply grasping at straws in a desparate attempt to discredit me) then I offer a sincere apology.
A desperate attempt to discredit you? Wow. Just. Wow.
(Pooh weighs imaginary scales…
Joe Wilson, Dr. BLT. Dr BLT, Joe Wilson. Yup seems about even.)
And as far as the tables being turned, I’m a big boy, I can take it, I wouldn’t dish it if I couldn’t.
The mother lode is ill manners, bad language, and name calling combined with witty insight into the political port-a-john that is the current administration. That’s why I’m a Sadly, No! reader.
Where’s the witty insight, Brando? There are so many ill manners, bad language and name calling in between the rare witticism that it is a full time job just trying to uncover the wit.
“I’m a big boy, I can take it.”
Has this premise ever been put to the test in your case, Pooh? It has in mine. I have proven to be a big boy. After all, I’m still making an appearance. But does that mean I wish to become a glutton for punishment? I think not.
How about a truce? I’ll lay down my weapon of truth if you lay down your hate.
BLT, my handle is “Pooh”, you think I haven’t taken my fair of, erm, shit?
Well, I will say this Pooh, you haven’t exactly come out smelling like a rose. Now, how about that truce? As that old War song goes, “Why Can’t We Be Friends”? Peace!
Try harder.
There are so many ill manners, bad language and name calling in between the rare witticism that it is a full time job just trying to uncover the wit.
So leave.
You wish, Anne. You wish.
Now thats a catchy handle!
“Chimpy McHitlerburton”
You really have to admire the mind that thunk that one up.
The President had better hope we win this war, because if we don’t, a lot of people will blame him. […]
Others write that if we lose the war it won’t be the fault of this administration, but the fault of white wine-swilling, brie-licking, latte-sipping, biscotti-munching, Saddam-loving, Islamofascist-sympathizing librul journalists. Well, maybe. But even so, that won’t change the fact that a President and Secretary of Defense that look in many ways as though they’re working for defeat won’t make an appealing scapegoat for a lot of people.
Seriously, if the MSM gets all the blame for us losing, do they get all the credit if we win?
I mean, if the media alone determined the outcome of the war, it didn’t matter who planned the strategy, or what it was, or how well it was executed. It follows that it didn’t matter what kind of clowns were in control when we invaded. Thank goodness.
I think Brad and Gavin and Seb need to install closed captioning for the humor impaired.
Also, I think Instapundit needs to read a history book. Carthaginians were barbarians who provoked Rome into destroying them? Wait, wait! Were the British barbarians who provoked the Spanish into sending the Armada over? Or was it really more just a big “virga” contest between competing empires? (I’m using the Latin term to avoid upsetting Dr. Whitebread–hint: “virile” is a modern derivative.)
I am also extremely tired of the “objectively pro-whatever” phrasing: it crops up more and more in Wingnuttia, and it’s pretty much an unsupported–and unsupportable–opinion. To say a thing is “objectively true” means that every single observer must come to the same conclusion based on the available data. Someone can be “objectively 40 years old” or “objectively male”, but even saying someone is “objectively blond” is pushing it. (Do all observers have the same definition of “blond” and where the dividing lines are?)
To say that a anti-war activists are “objectively pro-Saddam” is literally non-sensical. In order for this to be “objectively true”, one must first assume that all activists are completely homogenous in their beliefs–which is the stereotyping fallacy that Reynolds seems so fond of (q.v. “Palestinians are enemies of civilization”).
Second, one assumes that there is actually a definition of what it means to be “pro-Saddam” that everyone agrees on. If one were to survey people for what actions they think support Saddam Hussein, I can guarantee that “meeting the man”, “praising him”, “giving him weapons”, and “fighting to lift UN sanctions against him” will rank a lot higher than “protesting the Iraq war”.
And once we’ve gotten those first two requirements, then our debater must show that “pro-Saddam” actions cannot be explained by any other motivation. So, for instance, Reynolds has to prove that war protesters are all thinking “Gosh, I sure hope Saddam wins this one!” instead of something like “It is wrong to fight a pre-emptive war based on questionable evidence” or “A war with Iraq will punish innocent civilians more than Saddam Hussein” or “My boyfriend is a Marine, and I don’t want him to get killed” or whatever.
Since none of the necessary assumptions are valid and Reynolds makes no attempt to offer evidence regarding motivations, I think it’s fairly safe to conclude that anyone who spouts off the “war protestors are objectively pro-Saddam” theme (or is it a motif?) is either consciously lying, completely divorced from “objective” reality, or some combination of the two.
Of course, stupid is always an option, I guess.
(Dang! Sorry for the long comment, guys! You should get a character counter like they have over at the crack den.)
(And bonus points if anyone can name the “pro-Saddam” folks I was talking about in step 2.)
I am objectively pro-sodomy, does that count?
“You should get a character counter like they have over at the crack den.”
Have you tried self-control, Dorothy? I’m only kidding.
BTW, blawgdawg is the new screen name for me, Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger. Too many people have been taking my name in vain so I thought I’d mix it up a little.
How is everybody doing tonight? Did anybody see American Idol? It’s a great escape from all of the dreadful news coming out of Iraq. Simon actually reminds me of some of you here. Of course, now you one of you will say I’m the male version of Paula Abdul, but I’ve stolen the punch line from you, as a way of employing my new scorched earth policy.
Clearly what we need is the Hehindeedization of the Media. I propose that Glenn start his own publishing empire with titles such as ‘Hehindeedweek’ – a glossy newsmagazine that reprints White House statements and directs readers to ‘Lilekshasmore’ a sister pub.; ‘Hehindeed Traveler’ – your source for State Department travel advisories warning Americans to avoid up to 50 foreign countries each month; and ‘Hehindeed Illustrated’ – sports mag celebrating the best of George W. Bush’s opening day first pitches, w/exclusive expose on Clinton scuffing ball during his opening day appearances.
I love your screen name, Aristophanes. I’ve forgiven your predilection for political bias and many of the critical remarks you’ve sent my way simply because of your screen name.
One hates to be picky, especially after being called “intelligent,” but you just might want to run that article through the spell-check before you publish it, sweetie. Hugs, Marq
Oh, hell. UNCLOSED TAG!
Honestly, Marq, if bad speller was the worst name I had been called here, I would still have a self-image. I wouldn’t know much about sophistocated love, much less, how to spell sophistocated words like sophistocated. Where I come from, my next door neighbor’s wife was also his first cousin, and his first-born son doubled as his half-brother.
Yes, Marq, it’s him, Dr. BLT. It’s his newly implemented scorched earth policy, in which he insults himself so much that there are very few insults left for anyone else to inflict upon him.
For the record, I was “over the line” Anonymous (the one near to my last post waaay up there), by accidental dint of not typing my name. I was none of the other Anonymi. I was not “hiding” as one interlocutor of repute implied; mistakes were made.
Here I am; rock you like a hurricane.
I will take Major Woody’s advice under advisement.
I don’t really care all that much, Dr. BLT. I’m just offering the obvious solution to your problem. It’s a bit ridiculous to go on and on about your “treatment” here when it’s clear that you are here voluntarily.
And bonus points if anyone can name the “pro-Saddam” folks I was talking about in step 2.)
That would be our present Secretary of Defense.
Dr. BLT, this parody Insta post shows another way Insty is big bag o’ fascist blowhard, and why most of us feel pretty OK w/ attackaroni:
I read on This Site that Dr. BLT secretly funded communist Aryan Nation child-porn rings in North Korea through internet song sales. This is exactly the sort of thing that Republicans do all the time. This is troubling, if true.
[“Disclaimer: This is sarcasm, and is absolutely not true. -the mgmt.”]
Nothing here is objectionable to you, right? It’s courteous, isn’t it? It’s not even [b]UNTRUE[/b]. I don’t even ACCUSE YOU of anything, I just say I “read” something somehwhere, and it’s JUST THE SORT OF THING you would do. I don’t even accuse REPUBLICANS of doing anything. Heck, I even say it MIGHT NOT BE TRUE right there in the post.
Now add to that hypocrisy. Add to that lies. Add to that ad hominem attacks (free of words like “assrocket” and “cunt,” but “traitor” is still an insult). Insty be bad, end o’ story.
You don’t have to call me, “Dr.” Anne. I’ve dropped that from my screen name because people here were offended. It gave the impression in the minds of some folks that I was flaunting my education. It gave the impression that I was shamelessly promoting my music. Now I promote my music only on occasion, and with a great deal of shame, as another one of my screen names will reveal.
In case you haven’t noticed, I’m now operating under various other screen names, most will be obvious. My biggest reason for alternating screen names is that I have a low boredom tolerance. I go on this site “voluntarily” because people like you, who obviously don’t like me, have a basic respect for fellow human beings and will not stoop so low as to resort to puerile, adolescent bullying tactics, vulgarity, and the like, to try and get rid of me. People like you restore my faith in liberalism. I also have some faith in some residual aspects of conservativism, and though I’m commonly marginalized as a troll (I title I don’t necessarily object to), I’m actually just a wanderer in search of middle ground.
Whatever, Dr. BLT.
Hmm. I wonder if “Little Heroes” is aware that, with the above blog entry, he/she has officially incriminated himself/herself in what law student friends of mine have informed me could be a good internet slander case.
Anne, it looks like somebody woke up this morning feeling a little dismissive.
Vulgarity is the linguistic tool of an inarticulate fucker. It’s a revolution damnit, were going to have to offend somebody. But I don’t want to be uncivil. Please accept my apology and this invitation to do a tongue-stand on my perineum.
Seriously, if the MSM gets all the blame for us losing, do they get all the credit if we win?
Nah. It’s the flip side of thanking Jesus for winning a football game: nobody ever says “We were doing great until Jesus made me fumble.”
BLT, I dont need to be offensive to tell you that your “now, now children, let’s play nice” rants are incredibly dull and add nothing of value whatsoever to the debate.
People are dying left and right as a direct result of the actions of the Bush Administration. We have illegally invaded a soveriegn nation, obliterated their infrastructure, and fomented a potential civil war.
There have been over 20,000 U.S Casualties to date, and Iraq’s killed number anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000, depending on what source you believe.
We have spent upwards of 500 billion dollars and have absolutely nothing of real, tangible value to show for it.
And yet here comes doc blt, whose main concern is not the validity of the invasion, not the inadequate equipment given to our soldiers, not the countless dead innocent civilians, not even the blood and treasure paid by America, no. BLT is more concerned with the civility of blog commenters.
Yawn.
I for one am objectively pro-ham & cheese.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
But then we’ll have to find a new troll!
[sobbing]
They don’t come here, you know — you guys just keep paddlewheeling them until they run screaming off into the night…
Where are we going to find another…?
Might I also add into the mix Reynolds’ short-lived campaign to portrary MEChA as a hate group, which was not just babsurdly groundless, but actually a form of extremism manifesting itself in the mainstream.
You should ask if the folks he labeled “fascist hatemongers” think he is a “civilized” blogger — especially since, in his rather muted correction of the charge, he neglected to either acknowledge that his characterization was wrong or apologize for the smear.
Of course, he then turned around and accused me of a “tendency to hurl unsubstantiated charges of racism” for observing, in the same vein, Reynolds’ propensity to cast terrorism primarily as the purview of brown-skinned foreigners or left-wing radicals. As I pointed out at the time, this isn’t necessarily racist (which, by definition, includes a hateful element) but it certainly is a potentially lethal blind spot.
Gavin, take some troll treats over to Berube’s place. He draws them like flies.
Just call him “Bruce, Almighty.”
Hail, MCH!
Also, I am deeply offended that someone saw fit to copy my Anoymous identity (Over the line Mr. A), and indignantly request that he or she self-copulate. Posted by: Major Woody
For the record, I was “over the line” Anonymous (the one near to my last post waaay up there), by accidental dint of not typing my name. I will take Major Woody’s advice under advisement. Posted by: MCH
And remember everyone, self-copulation is only recommended for those of us with sufficient practice and experience; kids, don’t try this at home!
I would like to invite you to join our secret society, MCH. You appear to have all the right stuff to be a member of our occult and ancient order, the Anonymati. You will receive a coded message in the mail, cryptically addressed to “Occupant”
Alas. It was so funny till this comment. Then BLT happened. Moron.
Major Woody–flashing back to accusations “Dan” made in the Limp Bizkit thread–would these self copulators have to use entirely their own, natural equipment, or could there be… er… foreign objects involved?
Anonymous and/or Major Woody — I’m not sure who’s which at this point — thanks for taking on the not-so-good Dr.BLT, to whom I would like to say: “Temperance” does not only mean “moderation” and “searching for middle ground.” There is another sense of “annealing or toughening”, as when a sword is tempered to make it sharper. Perhaps Dr BLT, or whatever he’s calling himself this week, thinks that liberals commenting here ought to be looking for the middle ground, as he claims he is, and that invoking “temperance” means having a mindset like his. Well, I’m not looking for anything halfway between liberal ideals and conservative rationalizations for greed. If I invoke the spirit of temperance, it’s the spirit of struggling to become better — not at finding “middle ground” with fanatics and haters.
I think that temperance while blogging is to be recommended because commenting under influence can lead to bad spelling, grammar and language.
An aside: Dr. BLT exhibits two traits of a troll — an excessive number of rather monotone posts and devoting the posts to berating other posters. However, his posts are rather short and not utterly repetitious. Is there some established terminology for troll-human hybrids?
I guess that as conservatives go, Reynolds is moderate. He muses about genocide 5 years from now “if provoked” rather than “nuke the bastards now”. Similarly, more hardcore nuts muse longingly about terrorists attack directed at San Francisco and NYT, rather than some unspecified European targets. If the 5th column gets decimated, that would be a good thing.
However, I think that the idea that someone is “objectively pro-” deserves some thought. Some folks, Instapundit included, are objectively pro-fascist. If we should wage an effective war and the free press is making it impossible, we should shut it down as a failed experiment — as it was done recently in Iran. Then we should take care of the leftist bloggers and 50,000 dangerous professors (David Horowitz is compiling a data base). There would be some resistance, but nothing that could not be cured by detaining, say, a million of dangerous folks in some facilities, say Reform Institutions for Unlawful Combatants, RIFUCs?