Instapunditwatch

2002-11-21T03:11:00.000-08:00

Glenn backpedals and backpedals, remains clueless

Judging by this:

TAPPED still has its panties in a wad over the Martha Burk fertility-control "satire" issue, which McElroy also mentions. But I repeat: a non-lefty white male wouldn't be allowed to claim "satire" as a defense for writing something similar about fertility control in women -- any more than he would be allowed to claim "Halloween" as a defense for appearing in blackface.

Still no evidence for the assertion that "non-lefty" white males cannot write satire, though Glenn seems to think refering to the blackface case helps prove something. What is unclear though, as satire is not the same as pulling a stupid fratboy stunt. Glenn still doesn't understand satire either. A "non-lefty white male" writing "something similar about fertility control in women" is not satire --indeed, fertility control in women is what Burk was satireizing! (Note btw that it's a "lefty non-male" who's being scolded for writing a satire...)

In a broader context, if somebody is offended by your writing, claiming it was humour or satire is no defense, just as "it's for Halloween" is indeed no defense for doing something as stupid as dressing up in blackface. But Glenn wasn't offended by Burk's spoofed, he was fooled by it. He took it serious. Which says something about his reading comprehension. Even out of its original context, this is clearly recognisable as satire. The phrase "a modest proposal" is a dead giveaway. ("I'll take Swift's satire on the Irish Question for $500, Alex.")

2002-11-21T03:10:00.000-08:00

Further down in the same article:

UPDATE: TAPPED has another post on this, and -- even after a long and cordial series of emails with Armed Liberal, who shares TAPPED's view -- all I can say is "you guys just don't get it." It's not about Martha Burk. It never was about Martha Burk. (Though if you think that calling Burk's piece "satire" changes the face of feminism you're showing your ignorance. There are other writings by academic feminists calling for the elimination of men and similar absurdities in dead earnest, though at nearly midnight I'm not going to run them down. But as a guy who once edited Catharine MacKinnon, I know a bit about this stuff). It's all about a double standard. Your "admit you were wrong about the satire" point is (1) utterly inconsistent with my original post; and (2) a conscious or unconscious effort to dodge the real issue, a double standard about speech that everyone knows exists, but that the left dare not admit -- because its whole existence depends on both the double standard, and not admitting it.

If we go back to the first post Glenn made on this subject, it becames clear that the above is one big fat lie:

MARGARET ATWOOD UPDATE: Porphyrogenitus has found that Martha Burk, currently busy trying to achieve gender integration at Augusta National, has made some fertility-control proposals of her own. Call it A Handmaid's Tale in reverse.

To recap: it was from the start about Martha Burk, Glenn was wrong about her piece and the criticism he got was not inconsistent with his original post; his point about satire being disallowed for conservative white males was a side issue only in the updates to this entry.

2002-11-20T03:47:00.000-08:00

Pathetic

Can you believe this?

But, as I thought was abundantly clear, my point was that if, say, Hootie Johnson wrote a piece calling for all women to be equipped with Norplant, to be removed only with the consent of their "designated partners" nobody would be bending over backwards to cut him slack because it was a spoof. How hard is this point to understand?

What most annoys me about Instapundit, more then his lying and slandering is this whining, these delusions of victimhood. This constant whine of "me so opressed", when he wouldn't know real oppression if it bulldozed his house. "Conservatives aren't allowed to write satire" my ass. Who's stopping them? Not the "liberal" media...

Course, with socalled conservatives like Ann "invade their countries and convert them to Christianity" Coulter around, any spoof or satire will have to be *very* broad to not be mistaken for a serious piece.

2002-11-14T03:06:00.000-08:00

Oh, alright then

Just when you decide to stay away from the lunacy Glenn puts his foot in his mouth again:

READER CECIL TURNER WRITES that this is the best anti-war argument that he's seen:
The gist is that we should focus on Al Qaeda, contain Iraq, and avoid making new enemies among Arabs. It's wrong--suggesting there is no collusion between Iraq and terrorists, and that Islamist attacks are limited by depth of feeling rather than military capability--but at least it's coherent.

But the big question: why did I have to go to a conservative website to find it?
Beats me.

Is he deaf and blind? To take just one example from the anti-war letters found at Open Letters:

I do not know the real reason why your government is so willing to start another war, at a time when Osama Bin laden is still not found, Al Quada is regrouping and the war against terror is losing momentum.

A second example:

However, the administration has no compelling evidence that he poses an imminent threat to this country, nor that he bears any responsibility for any prior terrorist attacks on America, in particular the attacks of September 11, 2001. I lost my office in the World Trade Center that day. An acquaintance of mine lost his life. Nothing would make me happier than to see the men responsible for orchestrating those attacks brought to justice. Attacking Iraq is not only irrelevant to this task, but it will make that task harder by alienating many allies and potential allies whose cooperation is essential.

Courtesy of Atrios, take a look at what Instapundit's friends said when Al Gore dared suggest it might be a good idea to deal with Al Quada before starting on Iraq...

2002-09-17T07:31:00.000-07:00

oh, for heaven's sake

Instapundit:

KOFI ANNAN DELIVERS peace in our time. And there's a reason why you should be worried.

"Peace in our time" is of course what prime minister Neville Chamberlain promised after Munich in 1938, when Great Britain and France appeased Hitler by sacrifizing Czechoslowakia. In other words, Kofi Annan is appeasing Iraq according to our friend.

Why does he think so? Because Kofi Annan announced that Iraq would allow unconditional inspections to take place. The full text of the letter, written by the Iraqi foreign minister, announcing this decision can be found at Counterspin Central.

I.P. Watcher may be stupid, but she cannot understand why Glenn would think Iraq caving in to US pressure is appeasement. Earlier he stated that the inspections wouldn't work, according to one Gary Milhollin. Perhaps that's why he thinks of Iraq allowing inspections as "appeasement". How he knows the inspections would fail is a mystery, must be that crystal ball he owns.

2002-09-16T15:03:00.000-07:00

Smear jobs

Instapundit:

WHIGGING OUT purports to find a Democrats/Al Qaeda connection based on the Buffalo Five all being registered Democrats. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

But not enough to not link to it, eh?

Let's see why Glenn felt the need to link to this incoherent rant:

So it should not remain ignored that there is an overlapping between the bad boys of Islam and elements of the Democratic party. In this article from the Buffalo News we learn that all five members of the al quaeda cell are registered Democrats, and I suspect most US Muslims vote the same way. And from FoxNews we learn of a march yesterday in DC by the "usual suspects" of the black and disgruntled Left elements of the party, protesting the war on terror as a purposeful distraction from bread and butter domestic issues. This march, few though there might have been in attendance (note Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton most definitely there), shows that there is a symbiosis of the Muslim and black communities that ties in not only with the Black Muslim movement associated with Farrakhan, but with the more establishment civil rights coalitions as well, who view American Muslims as potential allies fighting against the oppressor whites on high. This is dangerous for the reason that it may be influencing the tentative posture of the Democratic leadership who are keeping an eye on the Congressional and Senate races in '02 and '04. Let the light shine on this fact, because it is a threat to the nation right now as Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt, two wily partisans who at least should know when to reign in their obstructionist tactics, are tap dancing around the issue of declaring war on Iraq despite millions of American lives and the future of American sovereignty on the line

Subtle stuff it is not. Blacks and Muslims are united to put pressure on the Democratic Party to oppose the War against Terror and so endanger national security is the message here.

And Instapundit? Clinton did not use McVeight to smear the right.

2002-09-16T02:44:00.000-07:00

Bias?

N.Z. BEAR points out bias in an Associate Press story on antiwar protests by Angela Watercutter -- though, to be fair, the bias could have been injected by an editor. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

So speaketh Instapundit. According to N.Z. Bear's post the story is biased because the antiwar protestors all come off as thoughtful, but the one guy quoted as supporting war with Iraq, doesn't. He also objects to the last sentence of the article:

Two people were arrested at the rally following a confrontation between protesters and a heckler, Lt. Larry Minasian said.

His beef? The use of the word "heckler" and that the article didn't tell whether the people arrested were pro or anti war.

It's all a bit silly, isn't it? To take the latter objection first, it is clear that the writer was citing Lt. Larry Minasian. Take the use of "heckler" and the omission of the affliation of the arrestees up with him.

As for the quotes used, since we cannot know how many protestors and counterprotestors were present, we cannot know how accurate these were. In real life, things don't always balance out and it's perfectly possible that one side is represented by knuckleheads while the other side isn't. It's N.Z. Bear's own bias that makes him think there's something fishy going on. And he is biased, otherwise, why the cheap shot at Hesiod?

Once again, we see something that I.P. presents as a fact fall apart when you look at it closely. The damage is already done however, because how many of his readers will follow the link to N.Z. Bear and from there to the original article (note I.P. doesn't provide this link) or to Hesiod's criticism of N.Z. Bear?

This may seem like a lot of fuzz about nothing, was it not that I.P. does this all the time. This is only one example of how I.P., by continually citing other bloggers, presenting their opinions as facts, shifts the debate his way. By presenting an unending stream of small lies, half truths, near lies and slanted stories the causual reader is left with the overwhelming impression that e.g. AP is biased towards the left. Repetition works. Word choice is important: "N.Z. Bear points out bias", not "N.Z. Bear thinks there is bias". So is presenting a humor as serious: "JOHN WEIDNER SAYS that Sweden is on the road to extinction."

2002-09-05T02:30:00.000-07:00

Keefer and Italie

Quote:

HERE'S THE STORY of how one of SpinSanity's founders was encouraged to leave his union job for criticizing an article in The Nation by Robert Borosage. Excerpt:

Would Keefer feel free to criticize Wellstone's political rhetoric? Yes, Keefer answered. Well, that's a problem, Anderson replied, because that would be a fireable offense. "By that logic," Keefer complained, "I can't criticize most or all of the political left." According to Keefer, Anderson answered, "Yes, that's true."

I'm sure that Michael Moore will be all over this example of post-9/11 censorship in America.

The story, called "Can Your Boss Fire You for Your Political Beliefs? Part 2" talks about Bryan Keefer, one of the people behind Spinsanity and how he got into trouble with his employer for politicial reasons.

Keefer worked for Service Employees International Union (SEIU) when he wrote a critical piece about Robert Borosage for Spinsanity concerning an article Borosage had written in the Nation. The twist: Borosage is co-director of the Campaign for America's Future and SEIU's president Andrew Stern was a founding member of the Campaign for America's Future. All of which led to Keefer being cautioned then deciding to leave SEIU.

Quite a sordid little affair; Instapundit is right to call attention to it. What surprises I.P. Watcher though is that he fails to call attention to a far more serious case, explicitely linked to in the Slate article: that of Michael Italie, a sewing-machine operator fired by Goodwill Industries when he was running for Miami mayor on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party.

It's hypocritical of Glenn to expect Michael Moore to be outraged about Keefer's situation when he himself stays silent about the far greater outrage visited on Italie.

2002-08-21T16:10:00.000-07:00

Is Instapundit Anti-American?

Just read:

A lot of people in DC say that the District is essentially a colony. Well, if so I think it's a colony that's not ready for self-government. It certainly wasn't when I lived there, and there's no sign that it's gotten better.

Better tell the Brits we made a mistake an twohundred-odd years ago...

2002-08-09T06:13:00.000-07:00

The point

A reader[*] writes in to Instapunditwatch about Glenn's reporting a rumor about who would become tthe new FAA administrator:

What was the point of the rumor about the FAA administrator? Territory marking. If the story breaks, it enhances his reputation as someone who gets all the latest news fast and has an inside track on upcoming news. If it doesn't break, well, who'll remember? Posting that little paragraph is like planting a flag on a mountaintop -- it says "I was here first."

Makes sense.

* Who will remain nameless for now, unless they want to take the credit.

2002-08-09T05:57:00.000-07:00

Ingenuity of bloggers

Yes, this is nitpicking. Deal with it.

Glenn:

YOU CAN ONLY ADMIRE this kind of ingenuity -- though I'd expect no less from a blogger.

The ingenuity he talks about is how the guy he linked to managed to get his dipstick out of his oiltank after the plastic handle broke off -superglue something to the end of the oil stick, wait till it sets and then lift it out.

A neat solution, but not a very ingenious one and he didn't come up with it, a friend of his did. Said friend isn't a blogger, btw. Glenn really cannot read.

2002-08-09T01:02:00.000-07:00

Glenn can't read

Title goes for the charitable explanation this time:

UPDATE: Reader Insta Punditwatch emails that this story comes from George Soros's Open Society Institute and that it complained about Guantanamo. I don't remember that, but OK. With bated breath, I await similar complaints from Amnesty, Chris Patten, and almost the entire Euro press.

What Instapundit Watcher sent him was this post. Would you read this and think I.P. Watcher was talking about George Soros's Open Society Institute?. Sheez.

Last time I.P. Watcher checked the Guardian was part of the European press too. What is it about "the entire Euro press" anyway? Give the problems Glenn had reading a simple article in English, I.P. Watcher doubts he's reading Dutch or French or German or Croatian newspapers.

2002-08-08T22:51:00.000-07:00

So he does have a sense of humor

In the middle of a post, Glenn assures us:

I see this all the time as someone whose views straddle the left-right divide.

*chortle*

2002-08-08T07:32:00.000-07:00

Oh, I don't know

Glenn posts a lengthy extract out of a Guardian article about abuses in UN funded and run mental institutions in Kosovo. At the beginning of the post he asks "why the United Nations is regarded as having any moral authority".

The abuses described in the article are indeed horrific, including tacit approval by the staff of male patients raping female patients. Certainly, this is a blemish on the UN's reputation, but does this mean the entire UN loses its moral authority? Anymore then for example the My Lai massacre permanently lost America its moral authority?

No organisation is perfect and in each large organisation there will be people abusing their power. Incidents, even horrible incidents like this are not enough to condemn the entire UN. It's needs more then that, it needs a culture in which such incidents are common and allowed to flourish. Does the UN have such a culture? Not as far as I.P. Watcher knows.

What irritated I.P. Watcher about this post was not as much the rhetorical question Glenn started with, as it was the rhetorical question Glenn signed off with:

Where are the people whose cries of outrage we heard over Guantanamo?

Look at where the article appeared, Glenn. The Guardian has certainly criticized America over Guantanamo. If you then read the last paragraph of the article:

The report, funded by the Open Society Institute with money from financier George Soros, was endorsed by the most respected human rights organisation in the US yesterday. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, called it "profoundly important... the horrors it describes are undeniable".

You'll notice Human Rights Watch endorsed the report. Take a look at what Human Rights Watch has to say about Guantanamo.

Guess what? The same organisations criticizing Bush over Guantanamo are the ones reporting about this situation. Imagine I.P. Watcher's surprise that Glenn turned out to be wrong about this.

2002-08-08T03:38:00.000-07:00

Ego knows no boundaries

Instapundit:

RYAN OLSON SAYS the future is now. And he appears to be coping with Future Shock very sensibly.

I.P. Watcher says he mostly appears to be sucking up:

I have these moments every once in a while where I feel like I'm living in the not-too- distant future, living in Kansas City, listening to an LA radio station personality interviewing a Tennessee Law Professor I know from his Web Site.

2002-08-08T01:14:00.000-07:00

Instapundit brags:

OVER A YEAR AGO, before InstaPundit was even a blog, I advised the White House to pursue a stream of Clintonesque mini-initiatives. Now TAPPED is complaining that he's doing just that. Advantage: InstaPundit!

No you didn't. You didn't meet with Bush or any of his advisors, you didn't have contact with an administration official, you just posted a small article on a web discussion board.

Nor does Tapped say Bush is doing the same as Clinton btw. Tapped complains that Karl Rove is "ginning up a faux crisis" whereas "Clinton, under Morris, looked for real local issues that could be readily addressed from the bully pulpit".

UPDATE: I.P. Watcher touched a nerve with that post she thinks, considering the update on Glenn's original post. Needless to say he was a lot less polite in his e-mail.

Why is I.P. Watcher sending Glenn e-mail, you ask? Because he doesn't read Instapunditwatch and he should get a chance to respond to criticism.

2002-08-06T14:41:00.000-07:00

Glenn doesn't like Amnesty International

Quelle surprise. Evidence for it's "knee-jerk anti-Western stance and focus on relatively trivial issues" is not given though.

Let's therefore take a look ourselves at the main Amnesty International website, to see if we can find some evidence of either a "knee-jerk anti-Western stance" or a "focus on relatively trivial issues".

The following news items were present when I.P. Watcher looked:

Israel/OT: High Court decision gives green light for collective punishment
Sudan: Human rights agenda for lasting peace
Turkey: Abolition of death penalty welcomed
Israel/Occupied Territories/ Palestinian Authority: UN Secretary-General's report on Jenin underscores the need for a full inquiry
UN: Oral statement on the working methods and activities of transnational corporations

In the recent reports section, we find the following:

Cuba: Ill-health of Juan Carlos González Leiva
Medical Bulletin
Laos: Law promulgated but has no impact : Torture/ill- treatment
Afghanistan Continuing need for Protection and Standards for Return of Afghan refugees
Myanmar: Lack of Security in Counter-Insurgency Areas
Cuba: Questions and answers on the work of Amnesty International

There's a prominent link to a special section about Israel and the occupied territories. Beyond that, there are calls to action to stop torture in the Ukraine, to free a Chinese historian, to stop police abuses in Southern Africa, to put pressure on the G8 to focus on human rights and to protect human rights in Columbia.

Now does that add up to AI having a "knee-jerk anti-Western stance and focus on relatively trivial issues"? I.P. Watcher doesn't think so.

2002-08-06T13:30:00.000-07:00

Comments

I.P. Watcher is a bit puzzled by Glenn's use of comments. Either you use comments or you don't, according to personal preference and she's okay with that. But what Glenn does is neither; he only uses comments on certain posts and they're always posts with which he can score points with his audience, never controversial posts....

Strange...

2002-07-23T03:22:00.000-07:00

Yes, I.P. Watcher has been inactive lately. She has a life outside of watching a certain professor make a fool of himself and this took over for a while.

While away, she has been doing some thinking about I.P. Watch and realized she doesn't need to pay attention to every lie, misrepresentation or unfair debating trick Instapundit uses. Instead, she will focus both on gross misconduct and on more in depth analysis.

2002-07-16T23:46:00.000-07:00

What exactly was the point of this?

RUMOR, ACCORDING TO AN EMAIL FROM A USUALLY RELIABLE SOURCE, HAS IT that someone from the White House will be named FAA Administrator in the near future. I don't have a name, but I have some suspicions.

2002-06-30T14:04:00.000-07:00

Manufactured outrage

You may have noticed the name Stanley Hauerwas suddenly popping up in Glenn's every second post. I. P. Watcher thinks this is an good example of how Glenn manufactures outrage against a specific target:

First, he links to an (supposedly) outrageous article of his victim.

Second, he somehow connects this victim to something negative.

Third, he links to anybody agreeing with him.

Fourth, if anybody disagrees with him, he either doesn't acknowledge it, or he uses it as another springboard for an attack on the original subject.

Fifth, he'll report on reader feedback showing that they overwhelmingly support him, occasionally skewering whichever unfortunate person is the token dissenter.

Finally, he reports on anything negative other bloggers may say about his victim. He also keeps up the smear campaign, again by connecting the victim with anything his readers will percieve as negative.

2002-06-30T09:49:00.000-07:00

Glenn doesn't think fraud, deception and criminal acts have nothing to do with Worldcom's downfall:

A READER SENDS THIS WORLDCOM-RELATED OBSERVATION:

First, the accounting delusions did not cause the company to collapse and 17,000 people to lose their jobs. No, a very bad business model that said if you keeping on growing by acquiring lousy companies, you can become one great big good company, failed (this is simply a variation of the old, we sell everything at a loss but make up for it in volume). All the bad accounting did was extend the time before these people HAD to be laid off. In other words, they were not screwed because they worked for a crooked CFO; they were screwed because they worked for a stupid company.

Second, the CFO was, almost for sure, not trying to defraud people in the sense of achieving any personal gain. Without any personal knowledge of this company, I can almost bet you, what he was thinking, was that if I just buy the company some time, things will correct themselves--and nobody will ever notice how I bridged this problem.

I think that's probably right.

I.P. Watcher knew Instapundit was naive, but this naive? Does he not know that Worldcom's founder Bernie Ebbers, got $430 million in loans from the company, plus a $1.5 million yearly pension from the company -unlike the 17,000 workers just laid off. Note there's no collateral for the loans --Ebbers used it to keep up payments on Worldcom shares, which are now practically worthless.

Sources:
Boston Globe
Red Herring

2002-06-30T07:28:00.000-07:00

As you may have noticed, somebody bought off the blogspot ad for Instapundit Watcher, because they support her efforts. The kind sponsor, who prefers to remain anonymous, has her appreciation.

2002-06-30T07:14:00.000-07:00

Glenn, talking about this Observer article, opinionates:

THE BUTCHER OF BAHRAIN: God knows what people would be saying if this guy were an American. But he's not, so it's okay.

Not that there's anything in this article to prove this absurd statement. It was Amnesty International, (who Glenn earlier accused of anti-Americanism) who together with Human Rights Watch called attention to "the butcher of Bahrain." It was the Observer, sister newspaper to the wellknown anti-American Guardian who published this article. And it's Britain, not America which is accused off keeping silent. America is not even mentioned in the article.

But all of this doesn't matter to Instapundit: any opportunity for a political attack can and will be used by him, doesn't matter if it's irrelevant, doesn't matter if the facts don't support it.

2002-06-28T14:30:00.000-07:00

This crap is what Instapundit thinks of as a good hatchet job on Molly Ivins.

2002-06-27T05:43:00.000-07:00

Psywar

With all the fecund richness that is the Instapundit weblog, the reader may be excused if she never looks beyond it to other features, like the Psywar Update, introduced as The latest ideas for weirding out Ladenites and other people who don't like us. Some of them may be true.

Where Instapundit's frontpage looks seductively reasonable at first glance, this is where the hardcore nuttiness is found. As an example the following extract from a reader suggesting how Hollywood could help the war effort:

If Marianne Pearl and the Pearl family would agree (a big part of me hopes they won't), I would make our own version of a Daniel Pearl murder video. Think Reanimator. When that sick bastard holds up Pearl's severed head, I would have the Industrial Light and Magic guys go to town. Let Daniel Pearl, in a digital version of his own voice, start spewing threats at those a**holes. Have Daniel Pearl say something like "Me and all of my Jewish ancestors are going to haunt you and you sorry ass families. We are going to take your 72 virgins and show them a thing or two. We are going to use our influence in the U.S. to make sure all of you get what's coming to you." Etc. They are a bunch of backwards religious zealots, so this would probably freak them out. I would even go so far to play on their fear and paranoia about Jews using Arab blood for pastries. Let's be outrageous. Let's hint at evil deeds of our own. Let's intersperse the severed head image with images of U.S. firepower. Show them the picture of one of our cruise missiles making a right turn down a street in Baghdad. Let's show them what a Daisy Cutter can do. Let's show them what happens when people f*ck with us.

It goes on like that. A good example of that very special mixture of naivety, outrage, immatureness and dimness that characterises warbloggers. The rest of the entries are marginally more sane, but betray the same kind of thoughts. None of the ideas mentioned are practical, all of them seem to think America's enemies are stupid enough to fall for idiocies like the above. And Instapundit encourages these people...

2002-06-27T02:33:00.000-07:00

anticipatory schadenfreude

A reader alerted I.P. Watcher to something she had overlooked in the Circles of agreement entry. I.P. Watcher only commented on the last part of that Instapundit post but it seems the first part is objectable as well:

BRAD DE LONG takes on anticipatory schadenfreude about the economy. (Paul Musgrave says De Long should be the top econoblogger in the Blogosphere, and he is pretty good.)

The piece that he takes down is by William Greider in The Nation, and what Greider seems to hope to get out of 15% unemployment is an end to U.S. "boastfulness."

Though it is true that De Long on the whole argues convincingly against Greider's reasoning there are a few problems with it.

First, nowhere does Greider hope for a recession, the closest he comes is in his closing paragraph, reproduced below in its entirety:

The scandals of Enron et al., unfortunately, must compete with another story--the war on terrorism--that's more exciting, and threatening, than dirty bookkeeping or the looted billions. The two crises are intertwined in perverse ways. The smug triumphalism of Bush's unilateralist war policy could be abruptly deflated by economic events--which probably would be a good thing for world affairs, since Washington couldn't run roughshod over others, but terrible for US prosperity. The financial scandals have provided yet another chilling reason to be wary of the US stock market, and if overseas investors decide to take their money home in volume, the already declining dollar will fall sharply. Credit would thus become suddenly scarce, since our debtor-nation economy relies heavily on capital borrowed from abroad, and such a convergence would trigger an ugly downdraft in the US economy. In that event, the fashionable boastfulness about America, the only superpower, would implode as swiftly as Enron's stock price.

He is not saying "i hope for an economic recession to wipe the smug grin off Bush's face", he's saying that if there's an economic recession it may be good for the world as it means the US could not maintain its current policies but bad for the US itself:

The smug triumphalism of Bush's unilateralist war policy could be abruptly deflated by economic events--which probably would be a good thing for world affairs, since Washington couldn't run roughshod over others, but terrible for US prosperity.

You can disagree with this argument, but you cannot accuse it of being "anticipatory schadenfreude".

Second, nowhere is the figure of "15% unemployment" mentioned in the original article, yet both Instapundit and De Long cite it. Where did this figure come from?

What I.P. Watcher makes of this is that Instapundit is sloppy in his fact checking. If he had looked critically at both De Long's post and the original article he would at the very least have noticed the problems with the "15% unemployment" cite and hopefully also that Greider never hoped for a recession. The bigger mistake here was made by De Long, for either being sloppy or misleading in his rebuttal of Greider, but Instapundit should've taken the time to fact check.

2002-06-26T13:53:00.000-07:00

Free floating accusations

There was a short item in the Washington Post today which said nothing more then:

SAN FRANCISCO –– A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.

According to Instapundit this is Stanley Hauerwas' fault. No reasons are given.

2002-06-26T07:12:00.000-07:00

Circles of agreement

On June 22 Glenn asks:

Is it just me, or is keeping the United States from feeling good about, well, anything, but especially itself the main consistent theme of the Nation crowd? And why is that, exactly?

Random Screeds responds 2 days later:

It's not just you.

As for why that is, well I post on the reasons for that frequently (see just above for another example, and here for a earlier screed), but there was a good sign in a Simpsons episode that pretty much sums it up, carried by a leftist demonstrator, saying "we hate life and ourselves". I donno about all of life (though there is the "voluntary human extinction" movement, but they don't kill themselves), but these people certainly hate the civilization they live in.

Glenn points this out the same day:

I ASK, Ranting Screeds answers. With a Simpsons reference, no less.

Why does I.P. Watcher bother with this frank and free exchange of views? Because it shows exactly the sort of "debate" instapundit s(t)imulates.

Instapundit gets the ball rolling by stating an opinion masked as a question: "The Nation is anti-american". Random Screeds' response though wordy, boils down to "I agree with you". Instapundit then links to this response and doesn't comment.

So what was the point in instapundit pointing out this response if he doesn't comment and Random Screeds' post didn't add anything new? I.P. Watcher thinks it has to do with what some call the "Echo Chamber" effect of the rightwing blogosphere. Strengthen an outlandish claim by constantly repeating it, by linking to others who agree with you, irregardless of whether they or you present any evidence for your claim.

2002-06-25T12:10:00.000-07:00

Blogosphere update: Instapundit posts a correction, mere hours after I.P. Watch tackled him on this:

LOS ANGELES TIMES UPDATE: A reader points out that the L.A. Times did actually cover the COPS endorsement story on 6/18, only one day after InstaPundit, Simberg, etc. and not a week later as my earlier post suggested.

A reader mmmm?

2002-06-25T07:42:00.000-07:00

Advantage: Blogosphere?

When you've read Instapundit for some time you know he likes to flaunt the advantage the "Blogosphere" has over traditional journalism. One typical example was published yesterday:

OKAY, THIS IS BAD NEWS FOR GRAY DAVIS. But it's also bad news for the Los Angeles Times, because this story is dated June 24, but the press release announcing it came out on June 17 -- as noted here that very day -- and I got it from Rand Simberg. Advantage: Blogosphere!

And indeed, Glenn posted a link to this press release the 17th. However, that was all he did:

GRAY DAVIS UPDATE: Davis just lost what looks to be a major law enforcement endorsement to Bill Simon. (Via Rand Simberg).

The LA Times June 24 article he links to on the other hand goes into some detail about the significance of this. It's always easier to quickly link to a press release then to write a piece, even a short piece, about it; the advantage of blogging over traditional journalism is not that spectacular here.

"But wait!" you cry, "It's still seven days after the press release before the LA Times reacted to this press release. That's still far too long and shows how much faster the blogosphere reacts!" Not quite.

First, take a look at the LA Times article: it's not a news article, it's an installment of Patt Morrison's rcolumn. Which appears only on Mondays and Wednesdays. When this story broke, it was a Monday and as columns are rarely written on the day of publication, it's not surprising that it wasn't addressed then. Her Wednesyday column that week addressed Bush recent trip to Europe -something slightly more interesting and important then the California gubernational races, don't you think?

Second, though Instapundit may let you think this was the first time the LA Times paid attention to Davis' losing the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs (COPS)'s endorsement, it wasn't. On June 18, a day after the press release, in a news article called Simon Blames Davis for Rise in Crime Rate LA Times readers are told about COPS' endorsement of Bill Simon:

Simon's remarks at a Burbank hotel were part of a statewide tour by the nominee to trumpet his first law enforcement endorsement: the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, known as COPS. It had previously endorsed Davis.

Conclusion: the "advantage" the blogosphere has over traditional journalism is brought down from seven to one day, with the LA Times actually writing about the story, instead of just providing a link to the press release, like Instapundit and Rand Simberg did.

2002-06-24T08:28:00.000-07:00

This is typical. The Washington post has a thoughtful article on racial tensions in a small town, focusing on a racist attack at the local highschool. It's an interesting, somewhat depressing article about what happens when a predominantly white community rapidly grows and as a result becomes more racially diverse. But what does Instapundit do with it? This:

WELL, it's easy to find the most admirable crew in this quote from a Washington Post article on racial troubles at a Maryland high school:

"The cheerleaders hang with the cheerleaders, the jocks with the jocks, the bangers with the bangers, the blacks with the blacks, and the Indians go to class," said Tristen Bryant, an African American. "You stay with your race. That's where you feel comfortable."

Jeez. Maybe if more students were going to class there'd be less time for ethnic tensions.

Which misses the point entirely. Was there nothing else in this article worthy of comment, Glenn?

2002-06-24T08:06:00.000-07:00

Instapundit in favor of colonialism

After hearing some rumors that Egypt is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons, Glenn proposes a return to colonialism:

EGYPT IS TRYING TO GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS, according to reports noted by Charles Johnson. And maybe Saudi Arabia, too.

You know, the arguments for a return to colonialism that I so snidely dismissed last fall are looking better all the time. I shudder to think that things may come to such a pass that Ann Coulter will be looked upon as prophetic, rather than deranged.

Ann Coulter is the rightwing scream queen who in the wake of 9/11 ranted that we should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

On the strength of a rumor, Instapundit now thinks she's right. What more could Instapundit Watcher add?

2002-06-23T09:24:00.000-07:00

Ho hum. Another warblogger heard off

Said " daddy Warblogs":

Another anonymous blogger is picking through Glenn Reynolds's trash in the hope that among the banana skins and empty cereal cartons he might find incriminating evidence that Glenn has committed the heinous felony of having an opinion that isn't shared by our anonymous friend. I shall be keeping an eye on Instapunditwatch, waiting for the moment at which the Watcher chortles at the 'lockstep conformity' of Reynolds's 'acolytes'; the irony of Instapundit's only 'fan' blog making such a claim will be rich and it will be comic. Watch this space.

Which is a fairly typical warblogger defense. Surely it cannot be Instapundit's lies, lazy research and slander that got Instapundit Watcher's goat, it must have been his opinions.

In Instapundit Watcher's view, everybody is entitled to her opinions, but that does not mean she won't point out when they're stupid, based on uncorrect assumptions or supported by lies and slander.

And no, Instapundit Watcher does not care about Glenn's acolytes. She prefers to battle dishonesty at the source.

2002-06-23T08:58:00.000-07:00

Glenn knows of Instapunditwatch, is still clueless

One Bo Cowgill thought it was wise to alert the Great and Powerful Wizard of Blog to Instapundit Watcher's humble little effort:

So I wasn't sure if Instapundit had heard of WarbloggerWatch affiliate InstapunditWatch, a website whose motto is ""Fact checks Instapundit's ass, because he doesn't bother to." So I emailed, and he writes back, "Chortle. As Thomas Ray says: 'Every successful system accumulates parasites.' Natch, it's anonymous."

Instapundit Watcher will let slide the crack about being an affiliate of Warblogger Watch, though she won't deny their efforts helped inspire this site.

More interesting is how Instapundit reacts. He calls Instapundit Watcher a "parasite", which she learned in school is usually defined as a hanger-on, a toady, a sycophant. Instapundit Watcher defies anybody to call her that. That title better fits some of Instapundits warblogging friends, especially the ones with the oh so clever variations on the "-pundit" theme, aka the "I want Instapundit's traffic" crowd.

Glenn also correctly assumes "Instapundit Watcher" is not the name she was born with. Apparently being anonymous is enough reason to dismiss one's arguments in Instapundit's world. How convenient.

2002-06-20T06:23:00.000-07:00

Instapundit on Said

He finally noticed that Said article in Al Ahram:

Said has always been more anti-Israel (and anti-West) than he has been pro- Palestinian or pro-Arafat, but the idiocy of Arafat's strategy since Oslo has led things to such a pass that even Said is pointing out the problems. He's also quite hard on suicide-bombing as a strategy, though an uncharitable reader might conclude that's mostly because he sees that it's failing miserably.

He just can't bring himself to give credit without trying to smear Said again, can he? Evidence for Said either being more anti-Israel then pro-Palestina or Said taking not a principled but a practical stance against suicide bombing are not forecoming, of course.

The other interesting thing about this passage is that it's in Al Ahram, which means that the Egyptian government can't hate it too much. And when you strip away the still-present obligatory Israel and America-bashing, it looks to me like another sign that everyone thinks Arafat now represents a problem, not an asset.

UPDATE: A troubling thought. We're getting a lot of cooperation all of a sudden from Arab countries, including places like Syria that haven't been all that cooperative before. It's likely that this is the result of increasing pressure. But given the cooperation between Syria and Iraq on nuclear matters, is it possible they're just trying to keep us out of the picture until the Islamic Bomb is ready in sufficient quantities? I don't think that's what's going on, but such behavior would be very much in character.

Syria has never been Iraq's closest friend -even taking part in the anti-Iraq coalition during Gulf War II, Instapundit Watcher seems to remember. Nor are either Syria or Iraq Islamitic states; they're both ruled by the secular baath parties, which are of a nationalistic semi socialist bent, not an Islamitic one.

Not a word about Instapundit being wrong about Said missing no opportunity to criticize the United States' war against terror, while saying very little about the practices of our enemies, of course.

2002-06-18T14:25:00.000-07:00

Pot calls kettle black

Our dear friend quotes from and links to a spinsanity article calling into doubt the reports about the restrictions on protests during President Bush's commencement address at Ohio State University. He comments:

Well, there you have it. Hey, anybody can be wrong, but -- especially when you're online and it's so easy to do -- it's important to correct things once you find out they're wrong, even if the incorrect version is more politically opportune. I would think that would go double for anonymously authored sites like MWO.

Even if this was correct it would be an astonishing piece of chutzpah, considering the sloppiness an outright lying found on his own site... But it's of course not true, as the original eyewitness account on the Democratic Underground website makes clear. Spinsanity has offered nothing to doubt this story, apart from the person reporting being -shock horror- anonymous.

2002-06-18T13:56:00.000-07:00

Instapundit accuses the EU of supporting terrorism again

Quote Instapundit:

CHRIS PATTEN IS COMING UNDER MAJOR CRITICISM for the EU's support for terrorism, according to this story in the E.U. Observer.

Now this article he links to only talks about some concerns several members of the EU parliament have with EU financial support for the Palestinian Authority, one of which, the anti-semitic and anti-Israel nature of PA published schoolbooks was already debunked last year in a paper by Nathan Brown, of The George Washington University. Nowhere does it offer any evidence of EU support of terrorism, yet does that stop Instapundit from falsely claiming there is?

2002-06-18T02:55:00.000-07:00

Edward Said and his support of fundamentalist Islam

From a recent Al Ahram article:

If there is one thing along with Arafat's ruinous regime that has done us more harm as a cause it is this calamitous policy of killing Israeli civilians, which further proves to the world that we are indeed terrorists and an immoral movement. For what gain no one has been able to say.

Who said Edward Said supported Islamitic terrorists again?

This article brought to the attention of Instapundit Watcher by one of her readers, for which thanks.

2002-06-18T02:27:00.000-07:00

More Instapundit Watchers

It looks like Instapundit Watcher started a mini trend; MaxSpeak has dedicated this week to highlighting "at least one incredibly dumb thing to be found on the site of the King of Bloggers". He does so "Because a modern day type of Red Scare -- hysterical misinformation about things on the left -- seems to cloud the vision of quite a few otherwise sane persons."

Instapundit Watcher can only applaud his efforts.

2002-06-18T01:45:00.000-07:00

yadda yadda Blogosphere blah blah

Instapundit praises the "self-correcting nature of the blogosphere". Unfortunately, the article he links to does not show this "self-correcting nature" at all.

Instead it shows the power of e-mail. The Rittenhouse Review made a mistake, got an e-mail about it and rectified its mistake. No different from how any website or newspaper does things, not something unique to the "blogosphere".

2002-06-17T15:02:00.000-07:00

Instapundit slanders the left again

Quote

PERHAPS ALL THE LEFTIES WHO HAVE SHOWN AN UNACCOUNTABLE AFFECTION FOR FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM will think twice now:

And then our brainac links to a Washington Post article about how Christian Fundamentalists have joined forces with their Islam counterparts. In other word, glenn accuses the left of giving Islamitic fundamentalists a pass where it would attack Christian ones. Worse, that "the left" supports Islamitic fundamentalism.

Instapundit also asserts that:

On the other hand, some people dispute my assertion that there are lefties who like fundamentalist Islam. Well, there certainly seem to be a lot of people -- Chomsky, Kingsolver, Edward Said, etc., who miss no opportunity to criticize the United States' war against terror, while saying very little about the practices of our enemies.

Now you know and Instapundit Watcher knows that this is not the same as showing an "unaccountable affection for fundamentalist Islam", but for the professor such things are more difficult to understand. You cannot draw conclusions from silence! Chomsky et all are under no obligation to state their disapproval of fundamentalist Islam when criticising US policy, no matter how much Instapundit wants this.

Instapundit Watcher wants to make it clear that she does not take Glenn's word for Chomsky et all silence on this subject, sio if any kind reader could give her a pointer she would be much obliged.

2002-06-15T06:11:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-06-14T14:28:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-06-14T14:13:00.000-07:00

Soccer

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.

2002-06-13T00:32:00.000-07:00

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.

2002-06-12T13:58:00.000-07:00

Instapundit endorses spamming

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

Typical.

2002-06-12T03:24:00.000-07:00

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".

2002-06-11T15:00:00.000-07:00

Welcome

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.

Instapunditwatch

Glenn backpedals and backpedals, remains clueless

Pathetic

Oh, alright then

oh, for heaven's sake

Smear jobs

Bias?

Keefer and Italie

Is Instapundit Anti-American?

The point

Ingenuity of bloggers

Glenn can't read

So he *does* have a sense of humor

Oh, I don't know

Ego knows no boundaries

Glenn doesn't like Amnesty International

Comments

Manufactured outrage

Psywar

anticipatory schadenfreude

Free floating accusations

Circles of agreement

Advantage: Blogosphere?

Instapundit in favor of colonialism

Ho hum. Another warblogger heard off

Glenn knows of Instapunditwatch, is still clueless

Instapundit on Said

Pot calls kettle black

Instapundit accuses the EU of supporting terrorism again

Edward Said and his support of fundamentalist Islam

More Instapundit Watchers

yadda yadda Blogosphere blah blah

Instapundit slanders the left again

How to contact Instapundit Watch

Instapundit, defender of religious freedom

Soccer

Chomsky again

Instapundit endorses spamming

Dissing Chomsky

Welcome

So he does have a sense of humor