March 31, 2012

Esquire's blogger Charles P. Pierce purports to instruct me: "For the record, writers do not write their own headlines."

He writes: "Thanks for the link, but, seriously, I know there are better things to do in Wisconsin than to be this publicly dim."

Typical lefty response, to call your opponent stupid. But:

1. Hello? Pierce? You're writing a blog. Bloggers write their own post titles. You can call yourself a "writer" and call your post title a "headline," but I presume if I'm looking at a real blogger, you write your own post title.
But whether you write it or some unnamed person at Esquire does, you are responsible for it. And the words were not only ignorant; they resonated with anti-Italian material throughout your post. Or would you prefer to call it an "essay"?

2. Your post really was dumb. You insulted Justice Scalia when you did not understand what he was talking about. I pointed that out. You scribble — presumably doing your own writing — about tweaks to the ACA in the wake of criticism of the "Cornhusker kickback," in some desperate attempt to recover some dignity, but you still haven't shown any sign that you understand the purpose of Scalia's hypothetical.

3. You repeat your accusation that Scalia is "just not trying very hard anymore." But Pierce, you lazy, lazy man. You are not trying at all.

4. But I am an idiot. An idiot to send this loser any more traffic. But I just had to kick his flabby old ass one more time.

131 comments:

Jim said...

As the Godfather would say, heh.

Fen said...

Charles P. Pierce: Thanks for the link, but, seriously, I know there are better things to do in Wisconsin than to be this publicly dim.

Typical metrosexual passive-agressive attack.

No wonder he isn't allowed to write his own headlines.

Michael K said...

LInking to idiots risks contaminating you with the association. It's like using Media Matters as a source.

Andy R. said...

his flabby old ass

Way to elevate the discourse.

chickenlittle said...

But I just had to kick his flabby old ass one more time.

A seated Pierce reads this and hunches forward to compose a retort. He shifts so far forward that butt cleavage presents (though there's no one there to see it). He shifts to just his left cheek, balancing there out of comfort. Finished, he plops back, his squishy quiver emptied and lets fly his arrow through the ether!

rhhardin said...

Opera is Italian.

The form was taken up by others.

SteveR said...

Way to elevate the discourse.

Try it yourself sometime

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

The I don't write my own blog defence..

Look who's talking.. accusing others of not trying..

Pelosi's "you have to pass it to know whats in it" was way more diligent.

Ann Althouse said...

"Way to elevate the discourse."

Civility bullshit.

It's a tag on the Althouse blog.

Find it.

Click it.

And fuck yourself.

Andy R. said...

"his flabby old ass"

"Way to elevate the discourse."

Civility bullshit


Hmm. Hmm again.

It's nice to see you owning your bigotry.

Tom Spaulding said...

And every vote for Barack Obama empowers stunted dweebs like Pierce, Toure, Schulz and Sharpton.

Remember that in November.

Ann Althouse said...

Can I get an internet link for "ass" too please Andy?

Sue D'Nhym said...

Now that, Althouse, was good.

Really, really good.

Steve Burri said...

This is a Wisconsin tradition going back over 100 years. A cold person comes into your house to start a fire and leaves with his flabby old ass burned badly.

Chip S. said...

I really get the sense that last week's SCOTUS arguments gave lefties a dose of cognitive dissonance that's taking them a long time to rationalize away. In the meantime, all they have to fall back on is invective.

Pierce is typical, in being a lightly educated person who's made his way through life by turning phrases of leftist cant into articles in such venerable publications as the Boston Phoenix. As long as he stays inside the cocoon, people tell him he's a talented writer, and in turn he tells them that he and they are smart.

These total beatdowns from Althouse are something he doesn't know how to respond to, because he's used to "winning" through intimidation. When that doesn't work, he's got nothing else in the arsenal--least of all informed, rational argument.

The tiny bits he contributes to the Boston Globe on sports are equally lacking in insight, btw. He's an embarrassment to Red Sox fans.

rcocean said...

Another Lefty sportswriter writing about politics.

Dumb as a post, and out of his league.

Quaestor said...

Chaz Pierce with Lenny "Spock" Nemoy flashing the Vulcan salute. (Gee, I suppose someone as clever and well-educated as Pierce would be the very first to display that little-known gesture)

Now let's see...

Old -- Check. He's either old or diseased.

Fat -- Check. Not morbidly obese, but getting there.

Flabby -- Probable. This generally goes with fat, say 90% certainty

Ass -- Unknown. He could be just screwed into the top of a barrel with a big BIO HAZARD symbol on the side, but I hope that's not the case.

I give the Althouse quote "flabby old ass" an 85% likelihood of objective truth.

Suck it up, askewhatguy.

Lem said...

Andy R is a typical leftist..

Who wants to bask in a glow of superiority for having the same flabby old ass, politically correct opinion.

rhhardin said...

$ insult 10
You aggravating scuttle of morbific swamp rabbit offscourings
You unlovely tucker bag [Austral] of phthisic condor shavings
You dreary vasculum of neuritic brush turkey piss
You vexatious musette bag of morbid ring-tailed cat fossils
You woebegone till of septic peewee exudate
You afflicting sarcophagus of insanitary muskrat dingleberry
You obscene cruet of chlorotic fox vomition
You distasteful rundlet of cancerous lion egestion
You undelectable pack sack of teeming baronduki saliva
You horrid holdall of maculate markhor slabber

garage mahal said...

These total beatdowns from Althouse are something he doesn't know how to respond to, because he's used to "winning" through intimidation

What beatdown? Althouse criticizes Pierce for calling his opponent names. Then she commences to call him names, and commenters do the same. Zzzz.

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

Sportswriters and Movie critics are notorious for being political dumbshits. I don't know why. Maybe they overcompensate with the left-wing crap because they're in the journalistic "Toy Department". Or maybe its because writing about sport or movies 24/7 rots their brains. Or maybe they believe politics is like the movies or sports.

cassandra lite said...

He doesn't even change the subject well.

Paddy O said...

I'm still a little confused. Which set of commenters are the Sharks and which are the Jets?

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Terry said...

If I felt this way about America : http://search.barnesandnoble.com/idiot-america-charles-p-pierce/e/9780767926157?r=1&wrk=1100216243&itm=2
I would move. Absolutely. It would be stupid not to do so.

madAsHell said...

Ya know...I'm pretty sure that Andy enjoys upsetting people. It makes him feel smart.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Tee hee.

Pissing contests can be fun to watch.

In the spirit of rhhardin (is some of that Shakespeare???) this Monty Python rant from the Argument Clinic sketch is for stooge 1 (hatboy) and stooge 2 (bilge mahal):

DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE REALLY MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS, TOFFEE-NOSED, MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

Rick Caird said...

It is pretty clear that Pierce cannot go one on one with either Althouse or even the majority of the commentors over here. He is one of those wimpy little writers who needs a small audience of acolytes in order to feel useful. He overrates his ability to offer a Churchill like or Samuel Johnson like barb.

Quaestor said...

You abhorrent rucksack of syphilitic sauropod coprolites

You leprous purse of arthritic armadillo scat

You scabrous ewer of rhinsitic ruminant regurgitation

You mutinous magnum of monogastric mongoose mucous

rcocean said...

"I'm still a little confused. Which set of commenters are the Sharks and which are the Jets?"

That's right, Paddy O, you're the only adult in the room. Thanks for being such a pompous twit.

DADvocate said...

It's so much easier to call someone dim than prove they're dim. You can't do the latter while being dim yourself. Plus, calling someone dim is the lazy man's way out. Prove them to be dim, if you can. Of course, some dimness is self-evident.

Scott M said...

+1 hour the MP reference. Name-calling aside, the beatdown isn't on this thread. It's from the one describing Pierce's original misunderstanding of the hypothetical. It was a wholly logical beatdown.

AA, +10 on the terse commentary. I was reading that on a deck crowded with BBQ'rs and the gaffaw drew stares.

Valentine Smith said...

The thing about old asses is that they're much more flappy than flabby. And droopy and ripply too. Generally there's nothing in the world I'd rather see less of than an old ass.

But I get the use of flabby old ass, it's like an objective correlative for Pierce's tired old intellect.

Quaestor said...

You lecherous litterbag of libidinous leech leavings

You nebulous nutshell of necrotic newt nibblings

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don't Tread 2012 said...

Dadvocate

Add 'willfully dim' to that profile.

I guess I find it 'queer' that Pierce snark = 'discourse'.

garage mahal said...

Name-calling aside, the beatdown isn't on this thread. It's from the one describing Pierce's original misunderstanding of the hypothetical.

Scalia's "misunderstanding of the hypothetical", just happens to be the explanation that doesn't make Scalia look like a fool.

Quaestor said...

You purulent purse of porphyritic panda pus

edutcher said...

Never pick a fight with a redhead whose profession includes the mastery of language.

And that will leave a mark.

Andy R. said...

his flabby old ass

Way to elevate the discourse


Spoken by Mr Frothy himself.

traditionalguy said...

The Professor is now doing it bare knuckles. No gloves for her today.The Radio announcer called it like this:

Old Flabby lazily toed the line and threw a left hook at her.

She ducked that and feinted with left hand jabs to interfere with his vision. Then she broke his jaw with a powerful right cross and upper cut combination.

She followed that by a low blow to groin and then a viscious reverse elbow to the nose (which mysteriously did not bleed).

Then the Professor rammed his head into the corner post, and while she had him stunned there she picked up the stool and broke it over his head.

Speculation has it that Pierce took something belonging to the Professor, and she forgot anger management principles for one beautiful moment that revealed what makes her our Champion.

Quaestor said...

garage mahal wrote:
Scalia's "misunderstanding of the hypothetical", just happens to be the explanation that doesn't make Scalia look like a fool.

Scalia isn't the one misunderstanding the hypothetical.

Fool.

gemma said...

doesn't write his own headlines and I'll bet after this smackdown he may even confess that he doesn't write his own blog...

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I was astonished at the uniformity of opinion in the comments over there. I picture them all in their tight pants, Beatle boots, Ray-bans and $60 cropped haircuts sipping Pabst Blue Ribbon and celebrating their own wicked wits. Then I picture them again in forty years, no families, tattoos fading and sagging, living on ramen noodles in one room flats, because the Democrats bankrupted the country at their behest.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Only boys have pissing contests. This is between Blondie and Princess Andy."

Doesn't mean dick squat.

chickenlittle said...

Andy R. said:
It's nice to see you owning your bigotry.

I believe that's what's called projectile bigotry.

garage mahal said...

Scalia isn't the one misunderstanding the hypothetical.

Fool


Who says Pierce misunderstood the hypothetical? Who says there was a hypothetical? People that want to defend Scalia. Fool.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

This is abuse! You want 12A, next door (stupid git).

Scott M said...

Garage, seriously. You're into Gore's green-friendly house territory here. Go back and read the original thread.

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

@ garage mahal:
Who says Pierce misunderstood the hypothetical?

Ann Althouse, and I agree with her conclusion.

Who says there was a hypothetical?

Anybody who read the transcript or heard the audio. Actually most give and take in the oral phase of a case of this nature amounts to hypotheticals.

People that want to defend Scalia.

Scalia needs no defense from me or even Professor Althouse. And BTW, "people" takes the personal not the relative pronoun.

Fool

Me, for bothering, you maladroit matilda of malodorous marsupial muck.

Paddy O said...

"Thanks for being such a pompous twit."

rccocean, you old egg, you're entirely welcome. I take especial pride in my twittery, hoping to take first or at least third in this year's competition.

Joe Schmoe said...

Also add a tag for 'lefties suck at arguing'.

Something else Pierce doesn't do besides write his own headlines: shower. He's an old flower-power hippie boomer, Ann, like you probably were, but he never grew out of it.

JM Hanes said...

Good to know that civility is fucking bullshit, because I'd get hopelessly stuck in the nuanced weeds of calling people names and calling people stupid and calling operas watermelons, and wondering who's getting the most mileage out of "Tony." Sammy Alito just sounds wrong on its face, though doesn't it? You'd never know that he's a Tony too. And so is Justice Kennedy! Wow, cue the creepy music....

garage mahal said...

Anybody who read the transcript or heard the audio

Scalia said "if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback". It can certainly be argued that he thought it was in the legislation.

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

It can certainly be argued that he thought it was in the legislation.

Only by a person who didn't know the facts of the matter or cared to a person who hadn't read the transcripts.

Give it up, for Gawd's sake, and save what remains of your shabby reputation.

edutcher said...

Peano said...

Never pick a fight with a redhead whose profession includes the mastery of language.

RED head??

MASTERY of LANGUAGE????

Man, what planet are you from?


Mrs Meade wasn't always a platinum, as she has noted on occasion.

And lawyers make a living off parsing language and turning words to their advantage, do they not?

When all this sinks in, come back down to Earth, where I live.

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlie said...

Pierce used to "guest-blog" for Eric Alterman. 'Nuff said.

edutcher said...

Peano said...

And lawyers make a living off parsing language and turning words to their advantage, do they not?

Practicing lawyers do. Your "redhead" is a coddled academic. If you think she turns words to her advantage, just review this post and the comments. Her words were her worst enemy.


She trains practicing lawyers, so she teaches them how to do it.

And she made her meaning crystal clear.

cubanbob said...

Quaestor said...
garage mahal wrote:
Scalia's "misunderstanding of the hypothetical", just happens to be the explanation that doesn't make Scalia look like a fool.

Scalia isn't the one misunderstanding the hypothetical.

Fool.

3/31/12 6:13 PM

To paraphrase Abba Eban's observation about the Palestinians, Garage never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to prove himself a fool.

Pierce is like Kagan, educated in the bubble and living in the bubble they have no concept that anything exists outside the bubble. However Kagan does have native intelligence and her wow expression is that of someone who for the first time has seen something completely outside her frame of reference. She may yet become a real jurist. I predict (for whatever that is worth) 7-2 to overturn.

MadisonMan said...

This is what I said.

And now he's insulting upwards.

Paddy O said...

"If you think she turns words to her advantage, just review this post and the comments. Her words were her worst enemy."

This is an interesting way of arguing. It assumes a position against the person, then uses the perception based on that position to make an argument against the person. This is an entirely self-contained argument that can be deployed in any context, regardless of topic or person.

Essentially, this comment and over at the Esquire blog there, its not about using words at all, at least as they convey meaning or context. It's an attempt at domination, words as tools rather than words as communication, using your own self-conceived authority to indicate a supposedly self-evident failure by Althouse's observations.

Assumption of one's own superiority is the whole ground of this approach, which oddly enough assumes that others are convinced by such declarations of assumed superiority.

The ad-hominem deployed against her thus becomes, in and of itself, the proof of Althouse's logical deficiency. She was said to be stupid, so whatever she says must then be proof of that.

It's an interesting intellectualized approach, because at essence it really isn't even about trying to convince Althouse that she is wrong.

It is an attempt to negate her as a contributor to the conversation, negating her comments as simplistic while at the same time elevating one's own perception--all while basically just calling people names, which is among the most childish forms of argumentation. It's a rhetoric of violence thinly disguised as objective reasoning.

Or, using slang from the 20s, "Says you!" The "you" implying an inherent lack of contributory insight that would bear any substantive meaning for the conversation and as such can be summarily dismissed.

Another species, it seems, of the "You, a law professor!" retort.

It's interesting because, as I said, it's not about the argument at all but about protecting one's own ego and self-assumed sense of superiority.

Very postmodern in a way, as it uses language in a game rather than to exchange meaning, though at the same time entirely not postmodern as it assumes a definitive metanarrative as providing some objective mark of defeat or failure.

Saint Croix said...

So Althouse wants an internet link for ass. No doubt suspecting this was sarcasm, Andy declined. But I take up the challenge!

I photo googled "old flabby ass," and you might be surprised but there don't appear to be a lot of old flabby asses on the internet. I think that's some sort of supply-demand issue. But I suck at economics so I can't be sure. I did find one old flabby ass and I clicked on it, and damn if it didn't take me to the macho response!

As to whether that is indeed Kathy Griffin's ass, I offer no opinion. You're going to have google that for yourself.

Also I found out that ass is a car, some kind of prime number algebra (math sucks ass!), a non-profit organization for squatters (now that's funny!), and a badly-named group of pagan gods. That must be an ancient Greek deal.

When I googled "Charles P Pierce Old Flabby Ass," I got this awesome photograph that totally made me think of Ann Althouse. "The Angle of the Dangle."

The caption? "Yvonne De Carlo demonstrates the perils of having a saggy butt." Yes she does.

Paddy O said...

"profession includes the mastery of language."

A mastery of language isn't just about using words, it's also about understanding how words are used and deciphering the essence meaning from words. Boiling down an argument. Precisely why reading comprehension is such a big part of the LSAT and law studies. You have to get to the heart of the matter without being distracted by what may be complicated sentences or obscure word usage.

That's what the best academics, ministers, lawyers, etc. do.

That's why Althouse's 4th point here is so important. It is the very essence of the present exchange, first with Pierce against Scalia, then against Althouse. It's just insults and posturing from the very beginning, so Althouse makes it all explicit.

And I don't at all think Pierce or others are stupid. It's very intelligent to use language as a form of rhetorical violence when one's own position does not seem to be finding favor through the use of language as an exchange of ideas.

AJ Lynch said...

The Cornhusker kickback was in the bill but caused DEMS too much embarassment so they took it out - correct? Saying it was not part of the bill is splitting hairs.

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Republican said...

Looked at the comments over there, and laughed.

Calling Althouse a drunk, a wino--

after many years of interesting and expert blogging, challenging and engaging readers, taking on fake feminists and sexperts, writing for major newspapers and appearing on national network shows--

That's the best-the VERY BEST-they can come up with.

edutcher said...

Peano said...

She trains practicing lawyers, so she teaches them how to do it.

LOL ... do you have any idea what courses she teaches?


She's talked about it on several occasions.

Calm down, dude, it's not that big a deal. Besides, you're starting to sound like shiloh.

You don't want that.

PS Saint, Yvonne DeCarlo never had a saggy butt.

Henry said...

Speaking of hypotheticals, how's that constitutional proscription of venality working out you, Charlie?

Did you read that far?

Or did they promise you it wouldn't be on the test?

Henry said...

Note to literal-minded leftists. It's called humor. It separates mensch from fish.

EK said...

“For the record, writers do not write their own headlines.”

This is the claim made by Mr. Pierce that piqued my interest. In the realm of “old media” print publications, the claim is entirely true, although a great many people don’t know it. The writers who write pieces for newspapers and magazines virtually never write the headline. Mr. Pierce can write an article for publication in Esquire’s print edition, but he would not write the title that would appear over it. The privilege of headline-writing is, in these organizations, generally reserved for a select few, or even just one, senior staff member, editor, or publisher.

For a blog, on the other hand, even one hosted by an “old media” print publication, I would assume, as Althouse did, that the blogger who wrote the post also wrote the title of the post. It doesn’t seem practical to me that you could centralize the headline-writing function for a blog in the same manner as is done for a print publication. Or do they actually have a system for doing it?

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

But if they told you they didn't write their own titles?

The title was the least of Pierce's worries. Even for a writer at Esquire there's only so much stupidity you can disown.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Let me get this straight...

Mr. Pierce, and Garage, here, think they've really scored a point on wicked Justice Scalia when they observe that the "Cornhusker kickback" isn't any longer in the bill?

Seriously? That's your big "get"?

It's a 2,700-page bill.

It would be more an indictment of Scalia as too political if he got that one right.

Someone explain where Scalia, et alia, are supposed to read all 2,700 pages?

I didn't think so.

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EK said...

“But if they told you they didn't write their own titles?”

That’s why I’m asking the question. Mr. Pierce certainly denied authorship of the title of the post. He did so, obviously, as a means of deflecting Althouse’s criticism. Notice that he does not offer a positive defense of the title, but merely attempts to shift responsibility for it away from himself and onto some other, unknown party. Would Mr. Pierce flat-out lie about something like that in order to escape criticism? I would be very reluctant to leap to that assumption. Is he, perhaps, leading his readers to conflate the inner operations of the blog with the inner operations of the print publication, again, as a means of deflecting criticism? Just what sort of a system do they have at Esquire?

bgates said...

SCALIA: When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right.

Doesn't this suggest a magnificent opportunity for bipartisan legislation that satisfies conservatives? Draw up a two part bill that says the kind of government programs the Right wants will be funded by the sorts of taxes we have now - rates reduced, since the Right wants smaller government - and the programs the Left wants will all exist and be funded by declaring the Koch brothers, Rush, and other named villains to be guilty of crimes against the state and fining them huge amounts of money. Pass it by universal accord, have the courts strike the bill of attainder half, and govern like it's 1925.

edutcher said...

Peano said...

Calm down, dude, it's not that big a deal.

At last, you got something right. In the space of three years, she clerked for a judge and worked as a drone in a huge litigation firm. And that was almost 30 years ago. Such is the "experience" of this coddled academic who "trains" practicing lawyers.

Find yourself a more worthy heroine, edutcher. The ole Althorse she ain't what she claims to be, ain't what she claims to be, ain't what she claims to be ... (sing along if you like)


Actually, she's a Hell of a lot better than that and, apparently, you can't handle your jealousy.

She spent most of this week putting the hearings for one of the most momentous pieces of legislation in our time into words and ideas the laymen here can understand.

And, yes, a law professor trains lawyers.

Can't handle it? Sorry, that's what she does. And she did work in a high-profle litigation firm before accepting a position at UWM, so perhaps Peano is jealous of her professional success.

Maybe Peano is mad because, as a "coddled academic", she should be beating the Administration's drum and saying how brilliantly the law was written and how dull the Justices were not to see the brilliance of the SG's arguments.

Maybe Peano is one of Troop's old crowd, nursing a bruised ego because of Bloody Sunday (Hell, I was deleted, too, but I'm mature enough to get over it).

Anybody who talks the way he does has personal issues he needs to address.

Paddy O said...

"You have a future on a law school faculty."

Why would I have a future on a law school faculty? That would be weird! I've never even gone to law school and all my degrees are in entirely different fields.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Peano:

You know, it's kind of strange that you would go there.

I don't know much about Professor Althouse--why should I? She hosts a blog; it's entertaining and informative. That's all there need be to it.

I have no need to dig around and find out a bunch of stuff about her, her family, her history...that's creepy.

Your response is to say she's small potatoes? Is that going to be your rebuttal to me? To point out I pastor two little parishes in a small town, so I'm a nobody, na-na-na?

Pastafarian said...

St Croix, it's been a long time since I've thought about group theory. You're going to give me flashbacks.

This part of mathematics doesn't suck ass, by the way. It includes some of the most elegant proofs.

Paddy O said...

"one of Troop's old crowd"

You know it has struck me as ironic that the complaining was all about freedom of speech and fairness and not playing favorites and whatnot then to discover they secluded themselves behind an iron blogspot curtain.

AllieOop said...

PaddyO, there is a reason his blog is private. Don't make assumptions.

Saint Croix said...

Cornhusker kickback was in the bill but caused DEMS too much embarassment so they took it out - correct? Saying it was not part of the bill is splitting hairs.

It's way worse than splitting hairs.

Scalia gave us a hypothetical of a "Cornhusker kickback" that violates a "Venality Clause."

Saying there is no Cornhusker kickback in Obamacare is like saying there is no Venality Clause in the Constitution.

It's perfectly true, and yet at the same time it's an utterly retarded argument. Scalia is making a hypothetical. You don't attack a hypothetical by attacking the facts we're assuming.

Suppose the sky is green.

"It's blue! You're too stupid to see it's blue! It's blue, blue, blue! Scalia's so dumb he doesn't know what color the sky is!"

Speaking of dumb Italians, Pierce comes off like Chico Marx. "You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Clause."

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

I had quit commenting on Blogspot blogs because because when a Google admin arbitrarily kicked me off for some innouous comment that s/he didn't like, and it ended up crippling my Android phone too.

The time away has been like rehab. I just don't get anything out of Althouse sycophancy anymore. I tweet as twospiritbear. It's a happier place. Peace

Saint Croix said...

But the absolute killer is that Pierce slams on Scalia while Scalia is making an argument that helps his side.

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

This part of mathematics doesn't suck ass, by the way. It includes some of the most elegant proofs.

You say that and I'm like "Hulk smash."

bagoh20 said...

"Can I get an internet link for "ass""

I checked, and it turns out that this is one of the richest, fullest, most abundant, bounteous, bursting, crammed, jam-packed, full, laden, loaded, padded, plenteous, stuffed, teeming, and voluminous of all subjects. Imagine what extraterrestrials must think of us.

rcocean said...

Seriously, go and read's CPP's response. Its lame. Shiloh has done better.

But then Charles Pierce is famous for what again? He should be happy Althouse even recognized him.

Scott M said...

Imagine what extraterrestrials must think of us.

That depends entirely on how much strange they're getting back home. Besides, I believe the American media-complex has documented proof that Earth girls are, in fact, easy.

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Sure.

And as the good Father noted, I haven't stalked the dear lady to memorize what cases she handled.

Apparently, Peano has.

Seek help,

tree hugging sister said...

Oh, Ann.

Masterfully put.

And, as I'm sure Andy's been fucking himself for a good, long time already, he shouldn't act so agrieved.

Unknown said...

Little known...Charles P. Pierce is a Marquette grad. Well known... He is an enormous idiot.

Paddy O said...

"Don't make assumptions."

Oh, I'm totally not.

But assuming assumptions are what caused the initial brouhaha. Now it's even more restricted access over there.

It's just especially ironic.

Unknown said...

---It's nice to see you owning your bigotry.


Oh.. Look everyone! Its a new type of bigotry! Ann's bigoted against lazy, not bright, journalists.

When you are a liberal, everything you disagree with is bigotry..... Hey, it rained yesterday, wasn't that a bigoted rain???

Clue... sometimes disdain (especially for white, elite, lazy journalists) is merited.

Seven Machos said...

I was, frankly, expecting more fireworks in this thread and the thread over there.

All we have here is Garage putting up his usual solid but unspectacular effort and then that anti-religious bigot Andy spouting at his typically intellectually inferior level. I'm a little disheartened. We seemed to have a political dead end in this country, where people on either side are just sniping at each other out of passing cocoons.

Oh well, at least one of my posts was referenced by the leftist tools on the Esquire thread. Naturally, the point and the joke went right over the poor guy's head.

J said...

Why call Chucky Pierce a 'man'?

He's obviously a dim little boy. He thinks he is a writer? Snort. Bart Simpson writes better material.

rcommal said...

Good Lord.

Gary Rosen said...

"Way to elevate the discourse."

Like "teabaggers"? You must be the guy who asked "Why are you wingnuts so insulting"?

rcommal said...

Yeah, ok, whatevah.

Comanche Voter said...

Let's put it this way. Pierce must write his book reviews and his bio--I've not seen such knob polishing tripe since I last read Baron Von Munchausen. Pierece is in no position to instruct anybody about anything.

Rob said...

Ha, his essay by another name would still be terrible. Who cares who wrote the headline?

Ralph L said...

AllieOop said...
PaddyO, there is a reason his blog is private. Don't make assumptions
Since you don't give the reason, we kinda have to make assumptions. Did he go from posting 60's cheesecake to explicit amateur porn in his wife's dresses? Too bad, anyway, he's amusing and usually sensible.

Curious how many commenters at Esquire include a university affiliation--and that Esquire puts it up. Not sure if they work there or just giving their pedigree.

For over a year, I wrote most of the headlines for my college weekly paper, but I never wrote an article for it. I was in charge of paste-up (before computers took over), and headlines were often done at the frantic last minute after an all-nighter. There's an art to meeting the space and time constraints without being banal.

Amazing that even syndicated columnists don't write their own headlines (you'd think they'd demand it), but one size does not fit all newspaper layouts.

Pogo said...

Jealousy is a curious beast.

Titus said...

Father Martin Fox is a priest so his views don't old much water.

Because you know those catholic priests.

wanky wanky in the directory no tell mommy and daddy, but we still hate gayes.

And he lives in Mississippi. I mean hello? Could it be any worse.

Sucky sucky.

Titus said...

Misissippi is the dumbest. fattest, poorest state who gets more federal money than all states.

And their catholic priests know how to get on their knees and sucky sucky and love cock long time.

slurp slurp Mississippi.

You know it is bad when even Alabama makes fun of your state.

sucky sucky from priest, don't tell mommy, this is our little secret.

David R. Graham said...

Titus, darling, why don't you go suck an egg.

leslyn said...

Ralph L:

No you do NOT need to make assumptions when you have no facts. But why am I annoyed by that? I probably should be used to it on this blog by now.

Comanche Voter said,

"I've not seen such knob polishing tripe since I last read....." ...here.

Scott M said...

Has anyone else noticed a definite uptick in the use of the word "cacooned" lately?

leslyn said...

Peano said...

Quoting Althouse:

Civility bullshit.
It's a tag on the Althouse blog.
Find it.
Click it.
And fuck yourself..


----------------Whew. "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

Watch it. The Althouse Army will be on your ass.

Althouse said,

I value all comments made in good faith. I love different points of view and even edgy modes expression. :-b

leslyn said...

@rhhardin, Don't Tread 2012, and Questor.

THANK YOU for elevating the discussion.

No irony; sincerely meant.

If I missed any other--

pussballs in moldy gym socks

I apologize.

leslyn said...

JM Hanes said...

Good to know that civility is fucking bullshit, because I'd get hopelessly stuck in the nuanced weeds of calling people names and calling people stupid and calling operas watermelons, and wondering who's getting the most mileage out of "Tony."

You've figured out the purpose of this blog.

That, and knob-polishing.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Hard to believe that's the same Titus. Just a shame in any case.

36fsfiend said...

I thought blessing those who curse you was a Christian trait.

Fr Martin Fox said...

36:

What are you complaining about?

Are you actually faulting me for being insufficiently kind to Titus?

Seriously?

I've been nothing but kind to Titus. That's not good enough for you?

Sheesh!

36fsfiend said...

Fr Martin,

That comment was not specifically directed at you. It was just an observation regarding civility in discourse.

chickenlittle said...

Looks to me like Titus was drunk again last night. That's when the mean face comes out.

gerry said...

99% of Catholic clergy serve faithfully and honestly, with rates of sexual malfeasance 6% to 7% below that of Protestant clergy (Phillip Jenkins, University of Pennsylvania). Jenkins also asserted in 2002 that his research indicated Catholic celibate clergy were no more likely to violate sexual ethics than Protestant non-celibate clergy.

Catholic abuse cases overwhelmingly involved adult men seducing pubescent young men. The problem was homosexuals seducing young men, not priests raping children. Both situations were unethical, but the situations were not the same.

Bigots always ignore facts.

Fr Martin Fox said...

36:

OK, sorry I mistook your meaning.

And I'm sorry to see Titus choose that approach. I thought we were on friendly terms. My mistake.

36fsfiend said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
36fsfiend said...

Fr Martin,

It was actually Titus' comments that got me to thinking about Christ's teachings regarding blessing those who curse you and praying for those who mistreat you.

Jeff Mitchell said...

I had no problem with the original post. But Anne loses the argument, as do all the name callers by forgetting the wise advice of Dilbert: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

The use of vulgar language, however cathartic, loses points for credibility because it offers no useful feedback other than to convey you've lost control of the conversation through anger. The nastier the names or vulgar language, the more points you lose.

It offers to one's opponent the consolation that to some extent your original thoughts were just fluff and of no account and that in toto you were merely trying to express anger. This, of course, leads them to believe in their deluded minds that they have won a great battle, when they haven't.

I avoid lefty sites because their vocabulary is limited significantly by use of small, four letter words which do not mean what they think they mean. It is their loss as the people they want to persuade do not wish to be part of that kind of conversation.

It does not seem productive to me to drive the polite considerate people that share our sentiments away with such vituperation. To me, the messages I want to send are far too important to me than my right to express myself with uncouth language or name calling. That you felt the need to use that avenue is a big red flag that you are arguing with someone who is incapable of understanding the nuances, and who should have been left alone in the first place.

Do you enjoy the fight so much that you don't care about the end result? When the battle is over, we may lose by a hair. It would be a shame if that hair was our lack of civility in response to theirs.

In the meantime, I took with great pleasure Scalia's karmic comment on cruel and unusual punishment. He was able to add humor to the situation and reflect back to the defense the fact that congress didn't read the bill before passing it. Scalia rocks.

I hope the supremes take out Wickard vs Filburne while they're at it. That would make 2012 the best year in a long time for the constitution.

David R. Graham said...

On blessing those who curse you, there is a story about Krishna. Two men, enemies, one right and one wrong in the issue at hand, battled it out and the right man won. Krishna appeared and said He would award the contestants immediately. To the right man he said, "Die immediately." To the wrong man, he said, "Live for a thousand years." Onlookers were horrified at Krishna's actions. He gave them reply. What do you think He said?

Clue: blessing is not sentimental, nor does the ordinary or even the extraordinary person know the conditions, causes and consequences of past, present or future.

Seven Machos said...

He said that David R. Graham is a freaky nut job. And then he threw fairy dust all around.