June 15, 2002

How to contact Instapundit Watch

One of the blogs Instapundit Watcher reads regularly asked how to contact her, so she put her e-mail address up. Instapundit Watcher asks for all mail to be polite and warns that flame mail may be published and mocked mercilessly.

Vaara, for it was him, also wrote a small piece about professor Reynold's trademark sloppiness.

June 14, 2002

Instapundit, defender of religious freedom

But only for some:

I also wonder: Padilla/Al Muhajir picked up Islam in prison. This should make us reconsider who we lock up, and how much religious freedom prisoners are granted. The prison system has been a slow- motion disaster for two or three decades, and here's yet another reason to address it.

In what goes for Instapundit's mind, the socalled "Dirty Bomber" is proof that having religious freedom for prisoners is a baaad thing and to hell with the Constitution. Ignore the fact that this guy hadn't actually done anything yet and we have only Ashcroft's word for it that he's a dangerous terrorist.


Instapundit shows his great knowledge of soccer:

TAPPED says that Washington, DC should be able to field a team in the World Cup.

I agree. Of course, I also think that Tennessee should get a seat at the U.N.

After all, if the E.U. is now a nation, it's no sillier than letting, say, France have a seat. In fact. . . .

Instapundit should have talked to a soccer mum, because she could've told him that in soccer teams do not always play for nations. Even Instapundit Watcher noticed there's an English team at the Worldcup but not a British team. So it's not entirely silly to picture a Washington DC soccer team at the world cup, unlike Tennessee at the UN.

Instapundit is also wrong when he thinks of the EU as a state, but that's hardly a surprise.

June 13, 2002

Chomsky again

This time instapundit quotes "a linguist" who wrote a letter to the national post:

Welch's most important point, however, is that because of Chomsky and others like him, dissent has itself become discredited. Its state is parlous if not terminal. Without credible and dispassionate dissent, government tends inexorably to excess. So do academic theories. Chomsky's legacy may yet prove to be an ironic one: that U.S. government and that of the West generally may slip into true tyranny for lack of balance.

Glenn then responds:

Yes, yes, yes. Dishonest and sloppy dissent isn't just cheesy. It's destructive. That's why there's no value to "dissent" generally, independent of its substance.

Typical, blaming the victim for being attacked. Remember, you can only dissent if our Glorious Leaders agree it's not "dishonest" or "sloppy".

Funny, being both hasn't stopped Instapundit yet.

June 12, 2002

Instapundit endorses spamming

Glenn thinks it's neat that Tim Blair spams Nigerians.


Dissing Chomsky

If there's anybody who gets Instapundit's back up, it must be old Noam Chomsky. It's no wonder then that any article that mentions him in any way that can be explained as negative will be linked to.

But when you look at the article in question, you see that Chomsky is mentioned only in one paragraph, when explaining that this new language theory (about the meaning of "umm and "aah") differs from Chomsky's earlier theories:

That idea runs counter to the thinking of Noam Chomsky, a renowned linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who argued in the mid-1960s that such phrases are simply "errors in applying knowledge of language in actual performance." Chomsky didn't consider "um" and "uh" part of proper language and he influenced a generation of linguists to exclude such phrases from linguistic theory.

This is a far cry from instapundit's belief that Chomsky's "linguistic opinions" are being "discredited".

June 11, 2002


Welcome to this brandnew site, dedicated to keeping a close eye on Glenn Reynolds, the socalled Instapundit. Instapundit is one of the most influential warbloggers in the blogosphere and his blog sets an example for dozens if not hundreds of other bloggers. It's unfortunate that he sets an bad example, by being lazy and even dishonest in his reporting.

Instapundit has a habit of arguing dishonestly, setting up strawmen, quoting his opponents out of context or misrepresenting their views, presenting extremist opinions as mainstream, etcetera ad nausem.

That's why this site was set up, to catch him in the act so to speak. This was not set up because Instapundit is a bad man, or out of a grudge against, but to combat a dangerous attitude widespread amongst war and other bloggers: that anything is justified if it wins you the argument.