Monday, November 29, 2004

Pat Buchanan: Ready For Civil War II

Pat Buchanan on the Civil War: "Well, we wouldn't lose it the next time . . ." 'Nuff Said.

Friday, November 26, 2004

So, What's Your Point?

Ann Althouse on evidence that the Shepard murder was not motivated by hatred of gays: "If a legend is used as leverage to change the law, we need to be willing to think about whether the legend is true, and if it is not, we need to be willing to rethink our analysis. . . . Justice demands that we think clearly about criminal responsibility and not let our minds be clouded by evocative stories that mesh with our assumptions about the world and our social policy aspirations."

Okay. What's your point? We should rethink our assumption that killing gays on the account of their gayness is bad? I mean what ARE you getting at?

More idiocy from the Corner

Andrew Stuttaford does not think it's classy to show Bush with blood on his hands. This coming from a writer for a magazine that consistently, and quite casually, compares Bill Clinton (that loony liberal?) to Lenin and other communist monsters. The National Review: always classy.

The Wingnuts' Conspiracy Theories

I love reading the Corner. I used to think that liberals were super-paranoid with all their conspiracy theories about how the CIA is really responsible for every evil in the world. Well, the right wingers, or the wing-nuts, have bested the liberals, and have their own little "CIA" that they believe is responsible for every evil in the world, it is the MSM (that's mainstream media for all you non-masochists who don't cause yourself pain every day by reading the wingnut side of the blogosphere).

Look at this post from the Corner: Yeah, that's right, the "MSM" is always looking for ways to push their liberal agenda. Ever heard of a joke there guy?

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Jim Lindgen: Taking the Volokh Conspiracy Down

Along the lines of this thread over at Greedy Clerks, I cannot understand why Professor Volokh has invited this clown, Jim Lindgren, to be a member of his blog. Volokh's blog is probably the best blog out there for sensible people. Although I disagree often with Volokh and his co-conspirators, I have always respected his, and his fellow bloggers', intellectualy honesty. This Lindgren fellow, however, is a complete partisan nutjob:

His latest idiocy is a post about Dan Rather that basically has NOTHING at all to say. I mean people get over this whole Rather-gate thing. Anyway, the funniest part is where Lindgren puts up some pics of Rather, and includes a picture of Dan and Castro. I mean big f-ing deal, a reporter took a pictuer with Castro. Wow! (And I especially like that his pictures run into Todd Zywicki's somewhat interesting post on the "Wine Wars." Way to go Jim!)

Here's another silly post: Jim shows us that he can cut and paste. He simply cuts and pastes some guy's "debunking" of the most "popular" vote-fraud conspiracy theories from the election. Apparently, he read instarepublican, and saw a link to this "debunking" so he cut and pasted it to Volokh's blog. That's some cool analysis there Jim. Is that how you get tenure at major law schools these days? (More cutting and pasting here, here and here.)

Anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of statistics could have a field day with this stupid post by Lindgren. Memo to Jim: Clark County was not 4.2 percent "more democratic" than the rest of Ohio in 2000. . . . it was probably closer to 8 percent "more democratic" than the rest of Ohio, but even that is a VERY rough estimate because we would need to know the size of Clark County and the size of "the rest of Ohio," i.e. Ohio minus Clark County. I am in no mood to explain, but anyone who has taken college stats will see the flaws.

And because I really don't like the guy, I can't help but point out that he does not know how to correctly use the word "whom." I've always thought that this was the greatest sign of someone who is really pretentiously stupid: trying to use whom and getting it wrong. If you don't know, just use "who." No one cares.

Update: Oh wait, I spoke too soon: here's his latest bile. Very thoughtful, Ohio's provisional ballots are trending slightly towards Bush. Big fucking deal. Bush won. Kerry conceded. We knew that.


I remember when instarepublican was a moderate. Unfortunately, he is now simply a hack for Karl Rove, that's too bad. And Glenn, if you want to help the troops like you claim to, why not actually be honest about what is going on there. You have said nothing about Fallujah, and have basically stopped covering the war since things started going bad. It's too bad because somewhere there, you probably have a brain in your head. . . .

Remember When There Were Moderates?

I do, and I am one of them. I am angry, and moderate.