November 20, 2011

"I have to wonder about the perspective of anyone who considers Althouse 'a crazed right-wing blog'..."

"... what with her voting for Obama in 2008 and all. Clearly, she’s extreme!"

From a discussion based on a blog post by a lefty lawprof who just can't understand why "right-wing" lawprof blogs get so many more readers than lefty lawprof blogs. The answers are so obvious and his whining is so unattractive that I can't be bothered spelling it out, but I'm sure said lefty lawprof won't really mind, since he's got so many other lefty lawprofs to look to for succour. With all that in-house comfort, are you surprised he's so flabby?

95 comments:

Jose_K said...

He is not insulting you but us.We read Volock( but for Anderson who does not allow comment and Adler , the left winger who knows nothing about science), Instapundit, Althouse and Legal Insurrection

Petunia said...

His blog is almost unreadable. Not just for the attitude, but for the quality of writing. Or lack thereof.

Eric said...

His blog is almost unreadable. Not just for the attitude, but for the quality of writing.

That's what I was wondering. Can someone who writes this poorly really be a good law professor? I mean, I realize blogs are just supposed to be dashed off without too much editing, but still...

jeff said...

So what's with the shallow and lazy thinking. He's supposed to be a smart guy. There are a lot of people I disagree with who can at least articulate their point of view in a logical way. How come he (and a lawyer at that) isnt one of them?

Bob Ellison said...

I saw that item on Professor Jacobson's blog and wondered, yet again, what is the deal with lefty lawprofs? I asked you, Professor Althouse, quite some time ago, to help us laypeople understand the leftist lawprof attitude. Now, please don't think I'm asking you to explain Leiter. He appears to be an idiot. But what's going on in the minds of lefty lawpeople whom you have hinted you may respect and even understand? What the heck?

Chip Ahoy said...

It's very remontant of him to carry on this way innit.

Chip S. said...

The University of Chicago law school was once great. I wonder how it wound up being populated by witless hacks.

edutcher said...

Two things I can never associate with Althouse, be it blog or woman, are crazed and right-wing.

Crazed moderate, maybe.

bagoh20 said...

Q: "So what's with the shallow and lazy thinking. He's supposed to be a smart guy... How come he (and a lawyer at that) isnt one of them?"

A: "The answers are so obvious and ... With all that in-house comfort, are you surprised he's so flabby?"

Bob Ellison said...

Let me submit a conjecture: lefty lawprofs are stupid. Everyone in the academy knows this but is afraid to admit it for PC reasons. This fact of stupidity makes difficult every argument about scholarship and law inside the academy.

bagoh20 said...

It's like being in the 1% where you get criticized for your success by people both infuriated that they aren't just like you, and clueless as to why.

Maguro said...

Haters gonna hate.

bagoh20 said...

"lefty lawprofs are stupid."

I often hear Erwin Chemerinsky argue issues from a lefty point of view. I know the guy is not stupid, so I know that he must know that he is often just spewing complete bullshit. I can't comprehend that he doesn't know this. I'm not that smart myself, so maybe it's just over my head, but it sure sounds like bullshit.

shiloh said...

"The answers are so obvious and his whining is so unattractive that I can't be bothered spelling it out"

But Althouse, ironically, can be bothered w/makin' a blog post about said whining lol. And no, whereas this is a totally right wing blog, my brief stay here some mos. ago found very few crazed posters other than the many lemmings who are totally crazed re: their allegiance to the blog mistress. Such devotion! :-P

btw, AA hasn't chnage a bit, god love her, as she and her troops continue to whine ad nauseam about the left and Obama, who yes Virginia, AA voted for ?!?

Rhetorical question ;) Who's more aloof, smug and full of themselves? Althouse or mittens ...

take care

Ann Althouse said...

"I asked you, Professor Althouse, quite some time ago, to help us laypeople understand the leftist lawprof attitude. Now, please don't think I'm asking you to explain Leiter. He appears to be an idiot. But what's going on in the minds of lefty lawpeople whom you have hinted you may respect and even understand? What the heck?"

As my post suggests, I think liberal lawprofs are complacent and they lack vigor after years of stroking one another and avoiding challenge. If they took up blogging thinking they would get the same adulation from the outside world, they deserved the cold splash of reality they got. They could have learned from that, but they didn't.

Those of us who did not indulge in the pleasures of getting petted and stroked inside academia turned to blogging to stretch out and revel in clear self-expression. It's intrinsically rewarding to write, and that makes it interesting to read... for a decent number of people anyway.

Spread Eagle said...

Leiter is a dork.

JAL said...

Yeah. He's talking about the commenters. Well, a lot of them. Not all of them. And some more than others.

What drives *them* crazy is people actually talk to and argue and bolster and blast each other across the spectrum on Althouse. (The con commenters actually disagree with each other! On my!)
Which is unheard of, not to mention actually unacceptable, on lefty blogs.

Chip Ahoy said...

It is very remontant to express jealousy again about traffic.

I said this already.

Bob Ellison said...

bagoh20, you're not stupid either. This is part of the problem. We tend to think experts are in charge and know what they're doing. What if the people in charge are dolts, and don't have a clue? What if they're self-dealers? What if the lawprofs are navel-gazing twits? What's our escape plan?

We don't have an escape plan. We assume competence. We assume our professors are competent. Sometimes that's not the case, and the assumption tends to be a self-sustaining tyranny.

Professor, thank you for your response. It seems incomplete, though. I think you think you know what's going on with these people. I want to hear more. Why do they think what they think? How (besides being in echo chambers) do they keep it up in spite of contrary argument and evidence?

The Crack Emcee said...

Sigh. Why does it ALWAYS have to be me? (Because, having been famous in my own right - for shit that takes real talent - I don't suffer from sycophantitus, that's why.) Whatever:

You law bloggers are almost all pretty weak - except for Jacobson, who's a pretty classy guy.

Of course, I agree with Leitner about Reynolds, who I'm always being jolted by when he goes sexual (Eeeewwww! Poor Helen,...) while spending waaay too much time on speculative bullshit and pseudo-NewAge anti-aging obsessions. I mean, from street-level, who gives a shit?

And Ann, of all things, why would you go after the guys looks? (I noticed the first comment on Jacobson's post did the same thing,...) I keep asking you if you think you're smart - is that evidence of it? Or more of the shallowness that makes you so popular with Glenn? Leitner's petty? Look who's talking.

Reynolds once said he didn't understand my blog - which makes him less intelligent than most of your readers - but, needless to say, the feeling's mutual:

You guys aren't a big tent to bring people together, or to work out ideas, but a clique, a tribe, a cult - and your small-minded attack on this guy's appearance is just as nasty as you think he is. I'm glad I'm not a bullshit artist when it comes to my personality, like y'all are (I hear The O-Jays singing, "They're smiling in your face,..." in the background) because I couldn't live with myself:

Such things matter to me.

The fact they don't to you, or Reynolds, I find deeply disturbing as you two become more famous.My take:

None of you are truly growing as people - just as "hits" - you're incapable of learning anything beyond the most base bullshit. Why?

Only your friends will tell you, kid,...

shiloh said...

"Which is unheard of, not to mention actually unacceptable, on lefty blogs."

Indeed, 2008 liberals were all in agreement re: Hillary and Obama. So much so, daily kos had several break away blogs started by disgruntled PUMA's.

Half the fun of being a liberal is "we" disagree all the time, whereas cons fall in line ie mittens will be the Rep nominee by default.

But I will grant you the Perry, mittens, gingrich, Santorum, bachmann, Cain, Paul, Huntsman circle jerk is much more entertaining than 2008 ...

traditionalguy said...

I sincerely love the Professor's writing talent. If she was a left winger, her thinking and concise writing talent talent would still attract a large following from conservative people like myself.

Talented humans are where God puts them.

She has attracted other talented people to comment here too: Titus, Crack, Trooper, AllenS, Meade, and Ritmo to name a few.

Leiter only attracts Philosophers who are amazed at terminal confusion dressed up as profound truths.

Steve Austin said...

Conservatives flock to the blogs and talk radio because we generally like to think things through. Outline them. Test them. Debate them on an intellectual basis. We want to convince others that our ideas are worthy and will work in the real world to solve problems (or that certain problems can't be solved)

Liberals are emotion driven. Hence all the protest and rallies. They don't know why they do stuff. Their heart and emotion just tells them it is "right". For them, the exercise of actually thinking through whether their ideas work isn't where they want to be. Hence little participation in blogs or talk radio. They want physical and emotional action. Not words.

The Crack Emcee said...

Oh, I see shiloh beat me to it. Will Althouse listen? Take anything to heart? I doubt it. I sometimes doubt she has a heart, at least as I define it.

I understand I'll never get ahead in this bullshit scheme of your'n. You can't have a guy who openly says "women ain't shit" - just like that - and think, right or wrong, there's truly a place for him in PC Land. But even worse than how some are marginalized is the idea of how y'all get ahead:

It's not based on ideas, that's for sure - which is why you need a clique - so you merely continue, and reinforce, the same sins this technological breakthrough was supposed to defeat. So what's the point?

I hate discovering that all the shit I hated in Jr. High will continue throughout my life because adulthood is populated by the same people,...

YoungHegelian said...

Okay, now I'm really confused. Everyone's talking like Leiter is a law professor, but his blog is full of postings on philosophy. Is he a law professor or a philosophy professor or does he have a dual appointment?

In any case, Jesus, what a putz!

That sort of behavior is even worse if he's a phil. professor, who are supposed to be open to, you know, such little things as fundamental questions of BEING!

There are thousands and thousands of candidates in philosophy out there. U of Chicago can't find someone better than this?

Paul Zrimsek said...

I'm told that Leiter is a red-diaper baby who never moved past the redness... or, apparently, the diaper.

Pogo said...

Why are there philosophy professors at universities?

I mean, seriously?

What would happen if tomorrow all college philosophy teachers suddenly disappeared, sucked into the void (seeing as most are atheists)?

Aside from gaining a bit more flexibility to a sophomore's class schedules, would anyone even notice?

Probably not even their spouses.
Well, that's a little mean, but you see my point.

jimspice said...

What do you think the left/right split is for lawyers in general, and law profs specifically?

Freeman Hunt said...

My respect for the reputation of the University of Chicago has acquired some dents over the last several years.

The Crack Emcee said...

I say, as philosophy, Leitner's arguments have *some* merit - and nobody can accuse me of liking Leftists or caring about numbers after my tiffs with Glenn.

This thing the law professors are doing IS bullshit, to some extent, but since they're in the too-big-to-fail category, they get away with it without correction or caring. That doesn't mean it's right or necessarily good. They can be bullies, and cowards, just because of their size. But that doesn't equal integrity - which is what a philosophy prof WOULD care about.

Y'all can overlook it - both the bloggers and the commenters - but that "haters are gonna hate" attitude is just as lame coming from y'all as it is when I hear Hip-Hop kids say/use it.

Is anybody going to grow up? Ever? Is that too much to expect?

I certainly don't think so,...

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

I must say that Jacobson comes across as a bit of wuss. Oh my Leiter is "petty" and "nasty" - get the smelly salts Myrtle!

DADvocate said...

Anyone who uses the phrase "whose sui generis combination of ignorance and moral depravity" to describe Glenn Reynolds betrays their own intellectual shortcomings and lack of honesty.

The Leiter shows his snobbish elitism by saying Reynolds blog is "(well outside academia)." Given current academia's intellectually closed environment, any genuine exploration of ideas "well outside of academia," not such a bad place to be.

Ann Althouse said...

"And Ann, of all things, why would you go after the guys looks?"

I did nothing of the sort

What's the flabbiest part of his body? I think it's his mind.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Everybody be sure to click through to Leiter's link about how he first came to use the clever put-down "Insta-Ignorance" on Reynolds. I guarantee it will make your day.

DADvocate said...

he's a red diaper baby.

No, he's a red DOPER diaper baby!

Revenant said...

I don't wonder about their perspective, I just mentally file them under "people not worth listening to".

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm told that Leiter is a red-diaper baby who never moved past the redness... or, apparently, the diaper."

There's salves for that. Desitin or whatever.

DADvocate said...

I guarantee it will make your day.

If your day is made by reading condescending, professorial crap.

Does anyone read Leiter's blog regularly? If so, they need therapy.

SukieTawdry said...

So, Althouse, I hear you had a modest scholarly reputation for [your] work in constitutional law in the 1990's. And then what, you went outlaw in the aughts?

The Crack Emcee said...

DADvocate,

Reynolds has promoted quackery and NewAge ideas on numerous occasions - so "ignorance" qualifies. Dangerous comes to mind as well. And once he started posting shit by hookers and the like, the "moral depravity" tag stuck as well.

Ann and Paul,

"Insta-Ignorance" is pretty bad, so yeah.

BTW - just throwing this out there - but I just watched a Spike Lee movie called "Passing Strange" that, while not perfect, had some good stuff in it. it's a musical, about a black artist from South Central, Los Angeles who goes to Europe and,...well, you can see why I might like it. I think you will, too, so you might want to check it out.

JAL said...

{Giggle}

Does anyone read this guy?

And yeah -- the "InstaIgnorance" blog from 2004 is a hoot.

JAL said...

OK. So Instapundit is a cooking and car blog.

And Althouse has pictures of pretty sunsets and flowers and perpetual demonstrations.

But Volokh?

Wow.

Professor Jacobson, nice job.

Have a beer.

Freeman Hunt said...

Just now I was reading a Kindle book someone asked me to look at in between checking out these threads and came to this sentence which seems apropo:

If we disqualify legitimate discussion, we compromise our ability to know the truth.

It continues:

It is important not to deal with dissent in this way. Instead, we ought to learn how to argue in a principled way--fairly, reasonably, and graciously. We need to cultivate the ability to disagree with civility and not take opposition personally.

Let the academy take note.

Pogo said...

Lefty law philosophy and ponderous cultural critique in a blog largely unread?

Good God, Leiter is the anti-Althouse!

If ever they should meet, the entire universe will cease to exist.

America's Politico said...

Pay not attention to other bloggers, Ann Althouse. You are the best blogger. Pulitzer will come. So, a NYT column (to replace the sorority-type MoDo or whiny Gail C.).

Oh, I came from a late Sunday night Oval Room shindig with super K-street consultants. The blonde from WH was there. She was hot and we later went out. There was much celebration about the lack of intellectual vision for our country in the last night GOP debate. Someone said: What was the collective IQ of the six candidates? How low is that to POTUS Obama.

GOP is finished. But, do not tell them. It will be a surprise next Nov. Just like a QB who is blind-sided...

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

"I often hear Erwin Chemerinsky argue issues from a lefty point of view. I know the guy is not stupid, so I know that he must know that he is often just spewing complete bullshit. I can't comprehend that he doesn't know this. I'm not that smart myself, so maybe it's just over my head, but it sure sounds like bullshit."

Liberalism has nothing to do with intelligence. Their problem is that they are delusional and in denial. It's the same as alcoholism. How many really intelligent people do you know who are killing themselves with alcohol and/or drugs?

A liberal may or may not be intelligent. Occasionally a liberal will have some type of profound spiritual experience and recover into intellectual honesty but it is rare. Recovery from liberalism is even more rare than recovery from alcoholism because there are generally no physical, legal, and social issues with being a liberal so they never approach a bottom. To the contrary, they are fiercely enabled by their peers.

DADvocate said...

Reynolds has promoted quackery and NewAge ideas on numerous occasions - so "ignorance" qualifies. Dangerous comes to mind as well. And once he started posting shit by hookers and the like, the "moral depravity" tag stuck as well.

You'll have to provide me some examples of the ignorance. Seems your idea of New Age may be different than mine. Shit by hookers doen't qualify as moral depravity in my book.

Synova said...

I don't think he'd mind "moral depravity" so much.

In any case, I've long thought that the "conservative" blogosphere was dominated, not by conservatives, but by liberals who'd been shunned.

Carol_Herman said...

I didn't even have to open it to know that Glenn Reynolds called attention to the particular put-down of InstaPudit.

Why do people go here and there? Because the media has failed!

This is not a church. You don't come here with a belief system, hoping to catch the choir.

While your particular success, Ann, is that you use "STRATEGY!" I know that's how great teachers work! They know how to roll out a discussion that brings a class to life.

You used the word "strategy" in describing something the other day. And, you bet. BINGO.

Discussions follow. Not lip service. The comments become a treasure chest. Interesting to read.

And, the photos! It adds visuals to the voices.

William said...

I crusted over a long time ago. But it should be noted that the very process of crusting over is dynamic and shows a willingness to change. Liberalism, on the other hand, is like a hydrocele that burrows in and year by year grows more swollen. A testicular hydrocele is painless, but its swollen character should not be confused with pregnancy or any type of productive state. If conservatives are crusty, liberals are hydrocelic.

Synova said...

I'm becoming less impressed with Philosophy as I go along, though. Not that I respected it at all before, but that disrespect was born of ignorance. The more I notice Philosophy or modern philosophers, the more my disrespect becomes based on knowledge.

The thinking skills involved seem like they'd be a good thing, helpful and useful, but the whole enterprise as it seems to be taken up by the professionals, seems to try to make a virtue out of creating truth as a mental game or, worse, creating truth by cleverly twisting up someone elses argument.

It's *almost* the difference between egg-head science and elbow-grease engineering. There's a pleasure feedback loop imagining a beautiful theory of what might be... but if the bridge falls down the bridge falls down.

It may well be useful to value the beauty of an argument, but the beauty of the argument or the ability of the philosopher to tangle the unwary or less able doesn't create anything of value but pleasure for the philosopher to gaze upon.

If the bridge falls down, it falls down.

TML said...

Ann, why not actually call out El Tubbo Brain and make him point out a single post or series of posts that qualifies for the treatment he gave you and the others? I know it's great to let him stew, but wouldn't it be fun to call him on it publicly? I read his post twice. Is this man really a law professor? Has he really ever left high school? It's just insane ramblings. I think you've nailed it with the description of their lives until recently being ones of extreme insider stroking and coddling. But still, they're supposed to be thinking adults, no? There is no way to read his crap and not be appalled.

gadfly said...

I like his idea about writing in Palin/Cain/Bachmann but I don't know what office Bachmann would have available after Palin/Cain.

At least he has my choices in the proper order.

Synova said...

Huh.

I should write a short story where the best Philosopher gets to be the wizard who gets to impose his/her will. Great tests and debates and challenges and the winner gets to make real their own vision.

And despite all the cleverly argued and skillfully supported and opponent trouncing skill, the reality bombs because it was all self-serving trickery rather than truth.

Palladian said...

"What's the flabbiest part of his body? I think it's his mind."

Frank would be proud.

The Crack Emcee said...

DADvocate,

You'll have to provide me some examples of the ignorance. Seems your idea of New Age may be different than mine. Shit by hookers doen't qualify as moral depravity in my book.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel like trolling my old blog right now (dealing with the shitty blogger search function) but he's done the NewAge quackery thing so many times I got sick of blogging on it. Hey - if Glenn Rerynolds ain't bright enough to change, what hope is there?

And sexual or relationship advice from hookers - or johns - is just stupid: both are deviants, with little to contribute to a discussion of normal behavior. Yet there they are, making Glenn feel "edgey" or something, but making him seem more-than-a-little pathetic. Charlie Sheen and I share several mutual friends in that industry, but I don't think either of us go to them for advice (actually, I recent got a note from one who finally saw the light on NewAge when a guy fell in love with her and decided she and he could rule the world, or some other nonsense, using "energy" of some kind. She used to believe a lot of that crap before,...)

I like Instapundit and the blogosphere and all, but that rich white elitist stupidity grates more than any of them suspect, I think. I want information, answers, and something to connect to culturally, but most of what they're giving is speculative diversion, as silly and useless as the MSM - just a different kind.

They never admit when they're wrong (so you can't trust them) and nothing serious comes of all this talk but their own aggrandizement so, in the end, it all adds up to a lot of nothing in the end. But I learned when I first saw the reaction to the phrase "and you, a law professor!" they could care less what that title means to anyone else (typical Boomers) so there's no point in expecting anything significant out of them. They're slumming for kicks and nothing more.

It's kind of sad, really, pointing up the waste of an education, and this country, at present.

I just can't decide if it's on purpose or they really are that dumb.

They're not honest enough to even answer or deal with that either.

Sigh. When the so-called "best and the brightest" are rich and educated - top of their class! - but can't do anything grander than post vacation photos, it makes people at my level wonder what all we're working for. It's no wonder the country's in malaise, because they certainly aren't going to point the way or make one for anyone else. (Could you see Ann or Glenn addressing a group of blacks, Robert Kennedy-like, for any reason? I can't.) It's ultimately just narcissism and nothing more.

Shit, even my music career was more than that,...

Martin said...

William--

I'm having a hydrocele procedure in 2 weeks and I resemble that remark!

Seriously, there's a simple answer to Leiter's question--the conservative or libertarian blogs generally reflect a certain amount of thinking or argumentation applied to the topics of the day, whereas the liberal blogs are just emanations from the echo chamber, without even weak argumentation to hold your interest.

One can disagree with the more rightish blogs, but at least there's often some line of argument to hold your interest and with which you can engage and agree or disagree. The leftish stuff is just dreadfully insipid and mindless by comparison. They just assume you agree and restate what to them is the obvious.

Martin said...

For the commenters wondering about Leiter as a philosopher, keep in mind that in the last generation or two much of Philosophy as an academic discipline has moved closer to mathematics than, say, ethics or epistemology or metaphysics, the latter three maybe being what you think "philosophers" still do.

autothreads said...

What's the flabbiest part of his body? I think it's his mind.

Ann, you could at least give a hat tip to Mr. Zappa for paraphrasing a lyric of his.

John Lynch said...

Lefties are boring. We know what they're going to say about any given topic, and their preferred strategy is to put so much off-limits to debate that there's nothing left to talk about. Boring.

If you're conservative, you get shouted down, and if you're liberal it's simply restating what you already believe. Boring.

Armed Fish said...

To The Crack Emcee:

Can't say that I always agree with Reynolds (or Althouse), but I don't recall seeing any actual 'New Age' stuff on Instapundit, apart from when he links to rebuttals.

He does like life extension stuff, and whether you may think it's possible or not, it is, at least, a reasonable thing to think about.

He is, a lot, about 'Faster please', when it comes to potential medical breakthroughs, but I also can't see that as been all that bad, either.

And, as for 'porn stars', in what way are they axiomatically immoral?

To someone who really does accept the idea of human rights and dignity, there's nothing wrong with allowing a person to do, with their lives or their bodies, whatever it is that they choose to do, so long as they do no harm to someone else.

And nothing rational indicates that their experiences aren't valid for consideration in other realms.

If they're being coerced (as some argue), then the immorality doesn't apply to the coerced, but to the coercer (and is a separate issue entirely).

And, here's the kicker, when asked to provide some examples to support your argument, you punt, and claim that you don't have time to bother with it.

That's a cop out, and you know it.

If you want the rest of us to take your argument seriously, you don't get to make a claim, and then refuse to back it up.

nevadabob said...

"Erwin Chemerinsky argue issues from a lefty point of view. I know the guy is not stupid, so I know that he must know that he is often just spewing complete bullshit."

He knows.

Lawyers are trained to argue a point even if they know their argument is stupid and morally indefensible and just wrong. They're paid to do that. It is specifically how they earn their living.

They are trained - specifically - in the ability and self-select for their willingness to make the argument any way.

Lefty law professors know that their ideas are stupid. But they're paid handsomely to spew them forth regardless.

So they do.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"From a discussion based on a blog post by a lefty lawprof who just can't understand why "right-wing" lawprof blogs get so many more readers than lefty lawprof blogs."

Key phrase is 'can't understand'.

Once you realize what this means, it becomes patently clear.

Just another closed-minded liberal that wonders how anyone dares think differently. Of course, we have been spoon-fed the meme that says liberals are 'open-minded'. That's the thing about liberalism and the garbled messages it provides, it asks that the 'message' sampler suspend disbelief.

Echo chambers can be debilitating.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Lefties are boring."

In that they default to intellectual laziness. Yes.

In that they seek to 'level the playing field' by rigging the rules.

Because, they know better. And they've always been told by other liberals how clever they are.

Crashingly boring and lazy is no way to go through life.

Saint Croix said...

I've long thought that the "conservative" blogosphere was dominated, not by conservatives, but by liberals who'd been shunned.

Synova with the score.

Althouse is a liberal hippie chick who believes in free speech and flower power and shit like that.

You have to be a Marxist fuckwit not to get that about her.

Joe Schmoe said...

Crack, are you thumping your chest trying to get some attention? The way I see it, you think women are shit, yet it's driving you crazy that a woman (Ann) has kicked your ass in blogging. You can't imagine why people choose her posts over your amazing thoughts, brilliance inescapably self-evident.

You ain't all that. Plus you come off pretty fascist implying that people should only blog about a narrow slice of something that you approve of. Get over yourself. And I'm not a sycophant of Ann; I just value free expression.

AllenS said...

"I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." -- Pauline Kael

Roger J. said...

Ann--a question for you, but pertains to most of the professoriate: does blogging "count" as publications in the profession? I assume this varies university to university. And this is not meant to be a criticism of any sort. I enjoy Volokh because a lot of what is posted there helps a lay person understand the law. I enjoy your blog because you are clearly dedicated to first amendment issues. Reynolds is simply an aggregator, but has a knack for bringing a bunch of interesting stuff together, usually with only a "hey" or "faster please."

My question again: how is blogging (and probably blogging success) viewed within the Law Schools in academe, and by the Provosts/Chancellors? And does blogging obviate publishing in Law Reviews and the like.

Thanks

purplepenquin said...

Instead, we ought to learn how to argue in a principled way--fairly, reasonably, and graciously. We need to cultivate the ability to disagree with civility and not take opposition personally.

Worth repeating.

Roger J. said...

Penguin--I appreciate your Millsian approach, but I fear in the current charged atmosphere it isnt going to happen.

Hope I am wrong.

setnaffa said...

The Crack Emcee appears to be a lonely, juvenile troll, so I'll give him some attention.

And now back to the adult conversation.

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann, you could at least give a hat tip to Mr. Zappa for paraphrasing a lyric of his."

What I "at least" do is give readers credit for having the ability to see allusions. Not everyone gets them, but when you do, you should say something allusive to signal that you got it. That's the fun of it.

For example, that's what Meade and I are doing in "The Negativity Café."

Ann Althouse said...

And this allusion was especially intended to reach out to Crack Emcee, who I know loves Frank Zappa.

The Crack Emcee said...

Joe Schmoe,

Crack, are you thumping your chest trying to get some attention? The way I see it, you think women are shit, yet it's driving you crazy that a woman (Ann) has kicked your ass in blogging.

Why do so many try to judge me by their own low standards? This is how YOU think, not I - and, if it's how you imagine I think, why don't you ask instead of just charging me with it? You sound like an idiot to me.

I don't have to thump my chest - I'm a walking chest thump. People who meet me once, in person, remember me years later like we're old friends while I'm left scratching my head trying to put a name to a face.

This is so stupid I'm telling myself, as I write it, that I shouldn't reply, but just for clarity:

I've been an openly rabid fan of this blog's free speech policy, which I had *something* to do with, for so long that to suggest I'm jealous of it's success is silly. I disagree with *the cultish creation of a clique* - which I always have and everybody knows it and has an idea why - and I've felt that way even after I was invited into it. Also, Ann has always been kind enough to share her blog's success with me so, again, you're full of shit.

As far as her being a woman, my general "women ain't shit" statement doesn't mean each-and-every woman, and I've made that abundantly clear over the years. (Ask Synova and Freeman Hunt.) On the other hand, Ann does indulge herself with feminist bullshit and plays coy with the truth so, just like if I was playing as Al Sharpton, that leaves her open to criticism because - in this age of lies - I am also a proponent of a brutal honesty. Criticism of an action or policy - even as extreme as mine can appear - does not automatically imply dislike of a person.

You can't imagine why people choose her posts over your amazing thoughts, brilliance inescapably self-evident.

Sure I can - she's safe - just as most people are in public. Like any "daddy figure," I'm not always easy to be around, and I'm not supposed to be. Ann and others get away with shit that, in real life, would get their asses kicked - I don't play that. Wanna go through life without serious reflection on your actions? Go to Ann/"Mommy". Wanna get to the bottom of things, and possibly discover you're at fault, with a demand you do something about it? I'm your man. Shit, even I hang out on this blog more than my own - mostly because I'm sickened by the society-wide fraud I cover - so what does that tell you, Numbnuts?

You ain't all that. Plus you come off pretty fascist implying that people should only blog about a narrow slice of something that you approve of. Get over yourself.

Nope, sorry dickwad, but I don't do that "abandon your ego" shit - nor do I hypocritically demand it of others, as you do, while stretching your own. I yam what I yam and I know what I yam and - get this - I like me. I'm the guy who's correct so often I should have the words "is right" added to the end of my handle. And I'm not fascist, unless knowing there's a right and a wrong and we should do right is fascist.

And since when did I say anybody should "only" blog about anything? (That shows the limits of your own thoughts at work,...) I think NewAge is an extremely important topic that deserves investigation because it's gotten a free ride for decades and it's dangerous, nothing more. It should be added to the discussion, which Ann does, just not with the rigor I'd prefer.

...I'm not a sycophant of Ann; I just value free expression.

You're an idiot who passes judgement based on your assumptions - an action we all learned in school defined stupidity. Sit down, shut up, and try to learn something:

Your kind of input smells up the joint.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ann,

This allusion was especially intended to reach out to Crack Emcee, who I know loves Frank Zappa.

I was reading an interview with his son, Dweezil, the other day and almost cried at the loss.

Thanks, Ann. I love you (still) and don't let anybody tell you different.

DaveW said...

I'm baffled by people that describe Althouse as a right wing nut. She's pro abortion and gay rights as well as an Obama voter.

How can anyone that voted for Obama be thought of as right wing by anyone?

The Crack Emcee said...

DaveW,

I'm baffled by people that describe Althouse as a right wing nut. She's pro abortion and gay rights as well as an Obama voter.

How can anyone that voted for Obama be thought of as right wing by anyone?


By putting their own assumptions ahead of the evidence (see above). It's common nowadays for people to do that, and for those wrong-headed assumptions to be taken seriously as criticism, which I despise because it drags conversations/debates into silly/unproductive areas that waste our time by distracting us from the obvious. If more people would ask questions when they don't know something ("Ann, are you a conservative?") we'd all be smarter and better off.

Getting back to my previous post, I'm hard on Ann because I think so highly of her (How many times have I said I think she's probably the bravest blogger out there? Only Stacey McCain of "The Other McCain" strikes me as braver.) Althouse, in my opinion, has the capacity to be more. Right now, it's like OWS - with people applauding merely because it's here, whether it's a productive endeavor or not. But people hashing out issues to no apparent end doesn't strike me as revolutionary and - in the case of OWS - not even knowing the questions to ask is D.U.M.B.. Ann's unwillingness to follow ideas to their conclusions may be good for her, or the blog, but it doesn't add up to much more and - as a fellow artist - it hurts for me to see that. We've got a country to save and she's a constitutional lawyer - hello! As an artist, she's uniquely placed, and educated, to take on more than she does. That's my beef. It's like watching your kid, who gets straight As, but spends all their time playing video games - maddening. (Not that I think of Ann as my kid/student or anything. I'm just sayin'.)

Anyway, people are stupid. People in groups can be even stupider. Liberals are probably the world's biggest cult and their stupidity is off-the-charts, especially when it comes to those they think have abandoned them (they can't imagine liberalism is actually wrong,...) Ann's a target for that shit, so she'll keep getting that nonsense until they mature.

All I can say is, under the circumstances, we should all be glad she's not also black,...

carrie said...

The first time that I read this blog I assumed it was a LEFT wing blog becasue it belonged to a UW Law Professor. It actually took me a few visits to figure out that it was somehting else. I don't remember how I was linked to that first post, so maybe it was the trail to the post that threw me off or, being a UW Law School graduate, maybe it was just me stereotyping UW Law professors. The reason I visit this blog is that I think that Althouse has given this blog a Rush Limbaugh tone where she analyzes the issues and opens them up for debate instead of just slamming things that she don't like.

Freder Frederson said...

Well if there was any doubt that this is a "crazed right-wing blog", all one needs to do is look at the comments on the UC Davis pepper spray post.

Freder Frederson said...

How can anyone that voted for Obama be thought of as right wing by anyone?

A blog is more than its author. What makes Althouse a crazed right wing blog is not that Althouse clings to some liberal position, but that she consistently panders to her mainly crazed right wing commenters. She never dares to criticize even the most extreme of them (e.g. Cedarford) when they post truly reprehensible things. Yet her contempt for the liberals who post here (myself included) is palpable.

The Crack Emcee said...

Freder Frederson,

Well if there was any doubt that this is a "crazed right-wing blog", all one needs to do is look at the comments on the UC Davis pepper spray post.

Oh yeah, Freder, because we all know kids are sent to school to teach others, instead of going to learn themselves.

You're as foolish as those kids are - I wish I had some online pepper spray - how old are YOU again?

Freder Frederson said...

You're as foolish as those kids are - I wish I had some online pepper spray - how old are YOU again?

This is what you claim passes for intelligent discourse? Spray someone with pepper spray because you disagree with them.

You, sir, are truly a fascist.

The Crack Emcee said...

Freder, let's frame this in just one simple way, even though there are others:

We are in a financial crisis. We don't have money for foolishness. Yet, at this very moment, here come the kids demanding we waste money because they (and you) want to turn a simple act - going to school to GET (not GIVE) an education - on it's head. And you wonder why we have contempt for your position?

Your position is beyond the pale and, yes, I'd rather see the kids pepper sprayed than the usual wrestling-to-the-ground bullshit because, frankly, why should anybody have to bother? We know - not believe or whatever - the kids are wrong. This is not what they're sent to school to do. It's not a free speech issue - they are out of line, period.

They got what they deserved.

Freder Frederson said...

We know - not believe or whatever - the kids are wrong.

Who the hell is we? I bet you would have been cheering on Bull Conner on the Edmund Pettus bridge. "What the hell are these people doing out there? We know they are wrong. They should be cleaning houses and picking cotton. This is not why we treat them so kindly."

And no matter how reprehensible I find your position, I would never say that it should be repressed with violence, as you have.

The Crack Emcee said...

Freder Frederson,


Who the hell is we?

Anybody who understands why you send a kid to school. Where in the brochure is "Protesting 101," Freder? And protesting what? It's been two months and we still don't know because those morons don't know enough to explain it. It's like trying to figure out why a baby's crying.

"Kick the baby!" (South Park)

The Crack Emcee said...

It just occured to me that if The Civil Rights Movement was as incoherent as OWS, we wouldn't even be talking, which you'd probably prefer.

Racist [snicker].

roesch/voltaire said...

Well Crack has cracked open the the narcissistic nature of blogs both left and right which offer a "catalyst, a lubricant for readers" designed to multiply the hits while circulating the same material and observations back and forth. Still I like the to read the blatant aggressiveness in comments that give texture to the way some think. For example: "The root of the problem can be found in their helicopter MadisonMan type parents. Spray those kids with systemic expulsions." Yes students are suppose to be an open docile book and then after graduation maybe they can protest, or join the army or get a job because someone over 18 can not think for themselves, cannot consider the excessive force used at Berkeley as something to protest. This is the same old--Reminds me of the pejorative comments made about the students who worked with SNCC and then came back to Madison to discuss civil rights in 1960, which by the way was not a clear cut issue for many, nor simple) (I was at one of those meetings.)

Sara (Pal2Pal) said...

The University of Chicago law school was once great. I wonder how it wound up being populated by witless hacks.

It is in Chicago. What else do you need to know?

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom DeGisi said...

Roger J.,

You said:

"Penguin--I appreciate your Millsian approach, but I fear in the current charged atmosphere it isnt going to happen.

Hope I am wrong."

The current atmosphere is less charged than, say, the atmosphere in 1858. And yet Lincoln and Douglas had their debates. At the same time people were dying in Kansas over the same issue. So, perversely, your fear and your hope are both correct. We will have thoughtful, useful discussions in public and in private. And we will have screaming lunacy or worse.

Welcome to the Monkey House.

Yours,
Tom

Tom DeGisi said...

Crack,

I'm glad you are spelling things out in response to those who would insult you. As befits someone with a poetic temperment, your comments often have a lot of layers. In this case those layers are deeply embedded in the culture of this blog. I am a frequent visitor, but I don't live here, so I very often don't get the reference.

Thanks,
Tom

mtrobertsattorney said...

Leiter is dogmatic Nietzschean.

Nietzsche claimed that the classical philosophers had nothing to say and that the questions they raised have corrupted the West:

"'What is virtue,what is character and can they be taught?" What a stupid question! "Can a democracy survive without virtuous citizens?" Another dumb question!

Taking his cue from Nietzsche, Leiter has no interest in classical political philosophy. In fact, He takes pride in knowing very little about it.

And that's too bad. Because if he did know something about it, he might realize that both he (and his mentor Nietzsche)are direct inheritors of the Sophist's teaching that "Justice is the will of the stronger."

The Crack Emcee said...

Tom DeGisi,

Crack,

I'm glad you are spelling things out in response to those who would insult you. As befits someone with a poetic temperment, your comments often have a lot of layers. In this case those layers are deeply embedded in the culture of this blog. I am a frequent visitor, but I don't live here, so I very often don't get the reference.

Thanks,
Tom


You're welcome, Tom - and "thanks" yourself.

Love said...

This may explain why so many here appear to know little if anyting about anyting:

Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University.

The poll surveyed New Jersey residents about the uprisings in Egypt and the Middle East, and where they get their news sources. The study, which controlled for demographic factors like education and partisanship, found that "people who watch Fox News are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government" and "6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government" compared to those who watch no news.

Overall, 53% of all respondents knew that Egyptians successfully overthrew Hosni Mubarak and 48% knew that Syrians have yet to overthrow their government.

Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson, explained in a statement, "Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News. Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."

This isn't the first study that has found that Fox News viewers more misinformed in comparison to others. Last year, a study from the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe false information about politics.