damnum absque injuria

July 15, 2006

Weekend Doucheblogging

Others wiser than I have often said, Never wrestle with a douche, it wastes your time, annoys the douche, and leaves you feeling disturbingly “fresh.” Being less wise than them, by definition, I’m going to go against my better judgment and take on the Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere one last time before I MoveOn. Why, you might ask? One reason, and one reason only: far too many on the left side of the blogosphere actually seem to admire the guy, and quote him as though he were a credible source. His widely quoted attack on right wing bloggers for attacking that psycho Deb Frisch is as good a post as any to establish that he is not.

I should warn you upfront that this post is going to be an extremely tedious read. If, after reading Patterico’s rebuttal you are already convinced that Glenn is a douche, then it may not be worth your while reading this post to examine just how many different angles of douchitude he has exhibited in the post. If, on the other hand, you’re like Greenwald’s fawn, Q&O commenter Mona, who insists that apart from one itsy bitsy boo-boo about Patterico, Greenwald’s crap is ice cream, then it behooves you to read it. Mona writes:

My view is that Greenwald’s post is correct, but contains one example that is not. And that is my view whether folks here announce him decimated, or folks there crown him Pope.

Did I say “apart from one itsy bitsy boo-boo?” Actually, later in that same thread she attempted to wish even that error away, arguing that a 2 1/2 year old link by a then-obscure blogger makes Greenwald’s identified boner fake but accurate:

But a commenter at Greenwald’s just posted some items from your blog that cause me to question whether I was a tad quick in assuming you’d been wronged. You are familiar with Misha; you welcomed him to your own place, and described his blog as great.

Yeah, and the same frickin’ post also describes yours truly as “a luminary,” so take that for whatever it’s worth. Mona continues:

You did that while referencing — with no criticism and a hearty welcome — Misha’s eliminationist rhetoric about judges stated in your own comments section.

Apparently, subtlety is lost on Mona, who took Patterico’s reference to “the always controversial Emperor Misha I” as … what, exactly? A backhanded compliment? Memo to Mona: when people respond to your brilliant insights by rolling their eyes and saying “O……kay,” that doesn’t really mean they are “okay” with what you just said. It means they are being polite. Patterico the power-blogger probably wouldn’t be that polite nowadays, but as a then-obscure blogger who was barely cutting his teeth, he was a bit of a wimp toward other, already established bloggers like Misha. So what? Even if he hadn’t distanced himself from Misha’s goofy rhetoric at all, WTF has any of that to do with his more recent criticism of Frisch’s psychotic ramblings?

Adding a final dose of irony, Mona topped off her rant with this:

In light of the foregoing, I’m not so sure you are in a good position to be leveling charges of “dishonesty” at Greenwald.

O-kay. Er… I mean … that’s the word, coming from the always controversial Mona.

Of course, if Mona were just one random commenter, pointing out that Greenwald’ post is garbage from top to bottom might not be a worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately, she’s far from his only sycophant. TGirsch, a normally sensible if left-wing blogger quoted him on this very blog, as a supposed rebuttal to a post of mine that said nothing about Frisch’s politics at all, apart from my use of the category “Liberal Morons” to file it. Even Jon Henke, no moonbat he, offers this pig a healthy dose of lipstick. So all in all, Greenwald gets a hell of a lot more traction than your average douche does, even after his most obvious error – attacking Patterico for not criticizing the likes of Ann Coulter – had been exposed. Thus, it’s worth wading through his entire post just to see how much of his ramblings hold up. Short answer: not much. Longer answer: some right-wingers support the death penalty, at least one right-winger has Misha on his blogroll but failed to condemn his hyperbolic rhetoric within the permissible 10 hour timeframe, and most (but not all) of Greenwald’s links actually point to other web sites.

Proceed at your own risk.

December 8, 2005

More Balko-B.S. (But I Repeat Myself)

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:47 pm

Radley “Everything I Don’t Like Is Unconstitutional” Balko is at it again, arguing that Congressional oversight of professional sports is unconstitutional. Balko writes:

Such is why Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., once asserted in a letter to Major League Baseball that his committee not only had jurisdiction to meddle in the MLB’s drug-testing policies, it had the power to conduct an investigation “at any time, on any matter.”

It gets worse. Davis’ committee, the Government Oversight Committee, is actually charged with reigning in government excess. Separation of powers be damned.

For those who slept through high school civics, the separation of powers is the legal doctrine that divides government into three (allegedly) co-equal branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Congress is the legislative branch, the one most of us would have assumed has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and therefore, to conduct whatever investigations it wants in order to decide what to do in that arena. Is Balko arguing that the courts ought to be doing this instead, or that President Bush should be doing it all by executive order? He doesn’t say.

Balko continues with his constitutional non-expertise thusly:

Let’s be clear, here. The Constitution gives Congress no authority — zero — to interfere in the goings-on of private entities like the NFL, Major League Baseball or the NCAA.

Let’s be equally clear here, only this time, let’s also be right. The Constitution – Article I, Section 8, to be exact – gives Congress plenary authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” To argue that professional sports is not interstate commerce is every bit as preposterous as arguing that medical marijuana grown in a single state and never sold, is. Granted, the Supreme Court has, at different points in history, embraced both views. However, that doesn’t change the fact that they are ludicrously wrong. We’re stuck with the “mari-ju-wana is bad, mmkay” ruling is binding today, the “sports isn’t commerce” precedent has rightly been abandoned to the dustbin of history generations ago.

The NCAA is a bit trickier, of course, as it maintains the fiction that it is not a commercial enterprise. But all kidding aside, colleges are as commercial as anything else, and the NCAA is about as intrastate as Amtrak. Besides, most if not all of the universities whose teams participate in the NCAA receive oodles of federal money with all sorts of strings attached. If all this turns on whether or not unversity sports is “interstate commerce,” Congress has an easy, 100% constitutional alternative: amend the federal funding law to require each university to accept Congressional oversight up the wazoo or forfeit all their funding. If one major university holds out, tighten the screws further to prohibit recipient universities from participating in leagues that don’t submit to Congressional authority “voluntarily.”

None of this means, of course, that Congressional snoopdoggery of professional and allegedly collegial sports is a good idea. I lean toward the view that it is not. But it’s one thing to question to the wisdom of a dubious policy, as pundits do as a matter of course, and quite another to take the Constitution’s name in vain, as Balko does every time he encounters any government policy he doesn’t like.

Balko then proceeds to enlighten us as to what his version of the Constitution would allow government to do:

If owners are colluding to keep an athlete from attaining his fair market value, it’s a matter for the Justice Department, or for state attorneys general.

Balko refers, of course, to Article VIII the Constitution, which reserves to the executive branch the power to “regulate and prevent Collusion of the professional Sports.” Oh wait, I almost forgot, there is no Article VIII. Balko must instead be talking about federal antitrust laws such as the Sherman Act, in which Congress exercised the very powers Balko claims it doesn’t have. Apparently, in the Balkans, it’s not OK for the Legislative Branch to enact an allegedly unconstitutional statute, but once it does, it is OK for the Executive to enforce it. Separation of powers, don’t you know.

If a sport is corrupt, it’s a matter for the criminal justice system.

Not necessarily. If a sport is corrupt in violation of law, it’s a matter for the criminal justice system. If a sport is corrupt in compliance with law, then it’s up to Congress to fix the law. And if it’s not clear which, it’s a matter for Congress to investigate. Unless, of course, the Radleys of the world would rather that Congress not investigate, and just pass laws blindly instead.

If athletes are cheating, let the sport’s internal mechanisms sort things out. If the sport fails, fans will stop patronizing a rigged game.

Ever heard of professional wrestling?! And besides, what fan in his right mind would boycott a baseball game just because they allowed the best players on the field rather than banning them for using dangerous but performance-enhancing stereoids? No one – well, hardly anyone – avoids buying albums or attending concerts of their favorite rock stars solely because they suspect that the artists use illicit drugs, cheat on their wives, or do any other number of bad things. What on earth makes Balko believe his precious market would perform differently for sports?

I could read the rest of Radley’s screed, but that would be 15 seconds of my life that I’d never get back.

October 5, 2005

Bush League Opposition

OK, that does it. I’m finished with being a presumptive oppoonent of Harriet Miers, and officially move into the camp of presumptively supporting her. That presumptive part probably won’t go away until the confirmation hearings, but for now, the case I’ve seen made against Miers has been so uniformly bad that I’m forced to think that if this is the best her detractors can do, maybe she ain’t so bad after all. The straw that broke the camel’s back was this entry, in which the two smartest Miers opponents I know both gushed over this asstastically stupid article by David Frum, which the Clam described as “required reading” for Miers supporters and opponents alike, and which Patterico then described as “a great article.” In fact, it is neither. The article is poorly reasoned, poorly edited, poorly thought through, and smacks more of some sort of personal vendetta than of a serious critique of Harriet Miers’s qualifications, or lack thereof, for the position to which she has been nominated. There’s is nothing remotely great or even good about it, and if it’s “required” anything it is required fisking. I doubt either the Clam or Patterico would have had any trouble seeing if the same article had been written about anyone they supported or were even neutral on, or if Frum had written a similarly reasoned article in support of Ms. Miers. Here are some of Frum’s pearls of non-wisdom:

The president was visibly angry at his press conference yesterday. Nobody likes criticism, especially when it’s justified.

Ah yes – if someone is pissed off at you for criticizing him, it must mean that your criticism is valid. After all, nobody really minds being criticized for no good reason, as surely as only the true Messiah denies his divinity. Did it even occur to Frum that maybe the President was angry because he reason to believe the criticism was not justified? Of course not, as that would require entertaining the possibility that Frum could be wrong, which of course we cannot allow. More on that later.

April 17, 2005

Can Just Anybody be a Law Professor?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 6:24 pm

The tendency of liberals to scream “assault on the judiciary” anytime any nonliberal criticizes a questionable court ruling favored by liberals is old hat, enough so that when I first saw this dreadful piece by University of Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein, I mostly ignored it. Then John Rosenberg pointed out this gem:

In recent years, some conservative politicians have been insisting that federal judges should strike down affirmative action programs, protect commercial advertising, invalidate environmental regulations, allow the president to do whatever he likes in the war on terrorism, use the Constitution to produce tort reform, invalidate gun control regulation, invalidate campaign finance laws and much more — regardless of whether they can find solid justification for these steps in our founding document.

Nope, nothing in the Constitution about racial discrimination, freedom of speech, federalism, takings, separation of powers (except, of course, when used to insulate the all-knowing courts from the “political” branches), limits on excessive fines or awards, or certainly any “right” of any “people” to keep or bear “arms.” Nothing in there at all, not a thingy-dingy. I was tempted to blog about that, but I procrastinated, and Powerline beat me to the punch. The one additional irony I will point out is that among all of the allegedly non-constitutional rights listed above, the only one that was really a stretch, tort reform, is grounded in the U.S. Supreme Court case of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, ___ U.S. ___ (1996), which was written by the most liberal member of the Supreme Court (Justice Stevens), with two other liberals (Souter and Breyer, J.J.) and both moderates (O’Connor and Kennedy, J.J.) joining, and all three conservatives (Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia and Thomas, J.J.) dissenting.

Now, Patterico alerts us to an even stupider line in Sunstein’s article, if that’s even possible. Immediately prior to informing his readers of the nonexistence of Amendments 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 and 14, he non-explains how “clear” it is that an act of Congress didn’t mean what any of the Congressmen who voted for (or even against) it less than a month ago thought it meant:

The problem, as the legal battle over Terri Schiavo demonstrated, is that whatever their politics, judges are unlikely to ignore the law. In that case, the law clearly did not authorize federal judges to order Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted — but some Republicans are outraged that the judges did not have it reinserted anyway.

Sunstein refers, of course, to Section 10 of the act, which provides:

Notwithstanding Section 2 of this Act, which requires the district court to review de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize the court to do a fucking thing about it.

OK, I guess the professor’s got us there.

April 1, 2005

Douglas Kmiec’s April Fooler

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:42 pm

Pepperdine Law Professor Douglas Kmiec has a lengthy column on Terri Schiavo’s case in today’s Orange County Register, with no link available yet (UPDATE: it’s online now). Most of the article, titled “We Can’t Move On Just Yet,” is very thoughtful and well worth a read. However, the two paragraphs devoted to what passes for legal analysis are worth reading for one reason only: fisking. Here goes.

Congress’ hastily drafted legislation was likely unconstitutional a dozen ways over.

Upon reading that, you might think that a “dozen” means 12, and that “unconstitutional” means “violates some identifiable provision in the U.S. Constitution.” Nah, that’s just what it means to us commoners. To a baker, a “dozen” means 13. To Kmiec, it means 3, and “unconstitutional” means “I don’t like it.” Here’s the first of the Kmiec’s dozen “constitutional” objections to Congress’s law for Terri Schiavo:

It purported to allow legislative revision of a settled case contrary to principles of the separation of powers, federalism and a host of federal rules that established finality.

That, of course, is a blatant violation of the 28th Amendment, which provides that:

Congress shall have no power to allow legislative revision of a settled case contrary to principles of the separation of powers, federalism and a host of federal rules that established finality. Yeah, we really mean that Congress, whose job it is to create federal rules, can’t create new federal rules to change that result.

No, wait, I lied. There is no 28th Amendment. The closest thing there is, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, applies only to the states. Even the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which bars the states and the federal government from bringing successive criminal cases, does not preclude the federal government from re-litigating in federal court any matters that have already been determined in state court. So for all the talk of a “constitutional” violation, all we’re left with is a bunch of emanations and penumbras no conservative law professor has any business caring about.

It singled out Terri for highly different treatment from everyone else, thereby contravening fundamental aspects of equality and the rule of law prescribing that legal rules be general and prospective in nature.

Which, of course, violates the 29th Amendment, which says… you get the drift. Far from prohibiting laws applicable to specific individuals (which, by the way, it does all the time, usually with no fanfare), the framers of the Constitution actually contemplated such practice. If the framers of the Constitution thought all laws applicable to specific individuals were unconstitutional, it would have made no sense whatsoever to ban bills of attainder in particular. Why ban specifically what is already banned generally?

Completing his “Kmiec’s dozen” of allegedly constitutional objections, the professor writes:

Most of all, the midnight law was premised upon no discernible legislative power – and in a government of enumerated authority, that is hardly inconsequential.

Nor, I might add, is it true. Article III grants Congress broad powers to make whatever exceptions and regulations it wants to federal court jurisdiction on any matters raising questions of federal law. Unfortunately, that’s all Congress did. However, it could have done more than that – much more – by exercising its enumerated power under Amendment 14, which appears to have been left out of Professor Kmiec’s version of the Constitution. Had he bothered to read it, he would know that all states are prohibited from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and that Congress has every right to enforce that prohibition by enacting appropriate legislation. But hey, why let that pesky Constitution get in the way of a good “constitutional” rant?

It would seem the only thing in favor of Congress’ legislation was the reasoned belief that all life is valuable – yes, inalienable. But then, like law’s otherwise imperfect coincidence with morality, that proposition in the Declaration of Independence has been largely aspiration, not formal law.

Unlike the idle musings of a law professor over “constitutional” principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution. Those aspirations, of course, are to be considered formal law.

March 20, 2005

Radley Balko, Legal Eagle

Radley Balko makes an ass of himself (h/t: Michele Catalano) while attempting to tackle the Schiavo case. Regarding the question of whether or not Terri Schiavo should be kept alive or allowed to starve to death, Balko writes:

[I]t’s pretty clear. Schiavo gets to decide if she lives or dies. You and I can both request that our lives be ended should we end up in a prolonged vegetative or comatose state. That’s usually done through a living will. But in cases where there is no living will, like Schiavo’s, courts can look at other evidence, such as conversations you’ve had with friends, family, and acquaintances. If that evidence is inconclusive, they look to the spouse first, then the parents, siblings, and extended family.

Um, no. If the evidence is inconclusive, you don’t kill the patient. It’s really that simple. (more…)

February 21, 2005

Moron German Prostitutes

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:22 pm

A few holdouts are still insisting that Clare Chapman and the Daily Telegraph’s hoax about German prostitution is legit. Some pretty much admit they want the story to be true, while some jerks attacked me personally even for suggesting otherwise. Thus, it behooves me to translate the other article that Chapman cribbed from. Note in particular the date that this story ran: July 30, 2003. Also note that the date in which prostitution became a fully recognized legal profession was January 1, 2002. Then consider the fact that the “25 year old girl” referenced in Chapman’s article is almost certainly the same “25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing ‘sexual services” at a brothel in Berlin” from Berlin referenced in the original article, along with the fact that “just over two years ago” was actually just over three years ago as of the date Chapman’s article ran. Bottom line: Charlotte Allen is right that there’s no evidence Chapman is “the Jayson Blair of Brit journalism.” Such an analogy would be terribly unfair to Jayson Blair. Chapman is Britain’s answer to Mary Mapes, or Dan Rather minus the stature. She’s no Jayson Blair.

So, without further ado, here’s a translation of the Jungle-World article Chapman appears to have cribbed from.

UPDATE: Apparently, some people just don’t know when to stop. After first attacking me for god knows why (is Clare Chapman his sister or something?!), and then deleting my polite responses to his anything but polite tirade (along with any other comments and trackbacks that disagree with him), he now accuses me of lacking “standards” and “intellectual consistency” because … well, just because. Actually, he spells his non-logic out a bit more clearly than that, so let’s have a go. I mean hell, I tried playing nice, but this twit obviously doesn’t understand nice. On to Plan B.

UPDATE: Contrary to the histrionics of a certain self-appointed blogospheric standards arbiter,

Sorry, I didn’t know there was some guy out there whose job it is to apppoint bloggers to arbitrate standards, express opinions, etc. I basically assumed it was a free-for-all. If only I had known such an official authority existed, I would have certainly have turned to the official Appointer of Blogospheric Standards to request an appointment the old fashioned way rather than taking matters into my own hands and appointing myself as a blogger. My bad.

there is absolutely no evidence that this story is a hoax.

Translated: “I like this story, so if you think it’s bunk, well, LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA LA.”

It is certainly the case that some media used sensationalist headlines that distorted the fact pattern, but the body of this particular story remain “undebunked.”

In the sense that it’s almost impossible to prove a negative, I suppose so. But between me, Snopes, the German members of ChicagoBoyz, the entire friggin’ media of the one country you’d think would be publishing this scandal on the front page ever day, and the fact that no other journalist in the world has reached the same conclusions Chapman did, not to mention the fact that the Daily Telegraph itself has yet to print either a follow-up or even another article on any topic by (ex-?!) journalist Clare Chapman, I think it’s pretty goddamned safe to conclude that the body of this particular story remains “uncorroborated.”

The perpertrator of the “hoax hoax” has a history of straining to discredit other bloggers for the sake of his (her?) own self-aggrandizement (i.e., “Ha-ha, look at me, I’m smarter than you!”).

Translation: this pissing match has nothing to do with the merits of the prostitution hoax. It’s all about the fact that he thinks I am smarter than he is, and he’s pissed about that. Not pissed that I claim to be smarter – at the time he posted his screed I had made no such claim – but because he thinks/realizes/whatever that I am. Guess what, I’m smarter than most people. It’s no big deal. This is about which story is right, not who can score higher on an I.Q. test.

His/her argument essentially consists of “The Telegraph is a tabloid,” “a name is misspelled in the article” and “‘lefty rags’ have reported it, so it must be false.”

I invite my readers to peruse my past articles to decide for themselves whether my argument was that simplistic or not. Although I will say this: part of it is unambiguously false. For the benefit of the 99% of my readers who probably do not speak or read German (probably including the Kipshit, given his utter lack of familarity with German culture), I’ve translated both of the lefty rag articles described. If he had actually bothered to read either the articles or the translations – assuming, of course, that he can read – he’d know full well that neither of these articles, nor any others that have run to date in any of the German or German-language press, came close to reporting the story that Chapman concocted.

One might also note his (her?) apparent fetish for the word “official” (e.g., “this story is officially bunk”) — since when is ChicagoBoyz an “official” anything? (He/She once insisted that I issue a correction regarding the “official” breed of my own dog!).

So that’s what it’s about. The kipstick knows full well that he doesn’t know a f’n thing about the topic at hand, and was too lazy or too stupid even to read the ChicagoBoyz discussion before commenting on it, but no matter – he’s mad at me for pointing out that he doesn’t know much about dog breeds, either. Note how he whines bout “my own dog,” as if his ownership of a single dog meant a f’n thing about the breed as a breed. Earth to Kip: you own one pit bull / Amstaff; you don’t own the whole breed. If I called my Rottweiler a “ruttwilder” (or worse, a “French Poodle”) you’d have every right to tell me I was wrong, and the fact that it was My. Own. Dog. would not have any bearing on the issue at all. More importantly, all this has what, exactly, to do with the credibility of a story about prostitution and unemployment in Germany that has thus far been alleged by one (count ’em, one) British journalist and zero (count ’em, zero) German journalists?

Meanwhile, the Telegraph has not issued a retraction,

Yup, I’m sure the Kipster reads the Telegraph’s correction section every day, so he’d know. He probably gets the paper edition delivered on his doorstep. Lord knows how else he’d even find their corrections if he wanted to.

its competitors have not pounced to disprove it,

Wow, for a Yank, the Kipmeister sure is one prolific reader of British journals. Not only does he have English paperboys fly all the way to deliver the Daily Telegraph to his doorstep every day, he also gets the Independent, the Guardian (a lefty rag which, curiously, has said nary a word about this topic), the Times of London, and scores of other British newspapers you and I have never heard of! All hail the great Kip, and scans each of them every day for articles tending to debunk or corroborate the one article he insists is legit.

the German government has not disputed the incident (the policy implications, yes, but not the incident), neither has the bordello; the woman has not recanted.

What’s to recant? If the kipstick had even bothered to read the story Chapman cribbed her from (or my handy-dandy translation of the same) he’d know there was no real story to recant. The woman was inadvertently referred to a bar tending job at a brothel. She complained, they may or may not have properly apologized to her personally, but they certainly made it clear to her that she was not at risk of losing her job benefits, as Chapman implied and the author of her headline stated explicitly. It might be nice if she were to come forward and admit that yes indeed, she did age a year and a half between July 30, 2003 and January 30, 2005 just like the rest of us, and as such, she was not a 25 year old at the time that Chapman’s cheap knock-off of an article ran. But a correction of such a trivial matter probably wouldn’t run in the Telegraph anyway. But I’m sure Kip already knows that, seeing as he reads the Telegraph and all its major competitors from cover to cover every day, paying special attention to corrections.


That shows how deep the French Kip digs to get at the bottom of a story. The last person thick enough to get my sex wrong was Mark York, hardly someone I’d want to be lumped together with. [OK, so “Sunshine” made a similar error much more recently than that. That’s different; her error was clearly intentional.]

also posts the following —

All further blogger speculation on this subject should end immediately.

What a very blogospheric response — “rush to (counter-)judgment; don’t dig any deeper. Just shut up — because I say so.”

Translation: an appeal to stop blindly speculating on something you know next to nothing about equals a directive not to research the matter and actually learn something. How sad.

How sad.


(UPDATE: Meanwhile, weeks later, he/she/it is still blogging about it. So much for “standards” and “intellectual consistency.” Go figure.)

Apparently, in this guy’s kipped up world, everyone has a duty to remain consistent not only to what one says, but to what some idiot from New York (but I repeat myself) says you meant. O-kay.

December 5, 2004

(Tax) Cut the Cheese

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:40 pm

Two years ago, I told you about TurboTax’s bug-like “feature” that prevented users from installing the product on more than one computer. I wrote the following about Turbo Tax, which at the time had a “feature” to prevent its installation on more than one computer – which in my case had actually prevented me from re-installing it on the same computer:

Aside from the pathetic implementation, I’m really not clear on what Intuit hopes to accomplish by prohibiting licensed users from installing their software on more than one computer. This is not like Microsoft’s OS, where two copies actually get you the benefit of being able to do twice as much (i.e., run two Windows-based computers at once). In an age where many families have more than one computer under a single roof, tax software that refuses to install on more than one computer makes about as much sense as a “smart book” that remembers that you read Chapters 1-3 in the living room, and automagically becomes unusable when you attempt to read Chapter 4 in the bedroom (or worse, in the same living room, after you rearrange the furniture). Whatever they are attempting to accomplish, they seem to think that preventing you from making two copies is more important than convincing you to buy one copy in the first place.


November 20, 2004

Katz and Dogs

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:15 pm

Professor Bainbridge links favorably to this article by Jon Katz, which ignorantly smears two dog breeds and takes numerous cheap shots at dog rescue groups. For some reason, the Professor describes Mr. Katz’s hatchet job as “a sobering article over at Slate on how the animal rights/rescue movements are compounding the problem of dog bites.” I disagree. I find this article neither sobering nor sober. If it’s a “must read” for dog owners, it is for the same reason that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a “must see” for fair-minded Americans who need to know what they are up against.


October 24, 2004

Knight Ridder: We’re Not Liberal, Just Right

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:27 pm

I haven’t decided which is worst, the original “nonpartisan” PIPA study, the revised PIPA study released yesterday, or Frank Davies’s hatchet job write-up of the study.

Poll: Bush faithful in own reality

Now there’s a fair and balanced headline if I never saw one.

WASHINGTON – A large majority of President George W. Bush’s supporters continue to believe that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (47 percent) or a major program to develop them (25 percent), contrary to official findings, a survey taken this month found.

Translated, some Bush supporters are confused, and others have had the audacity to actually read the Duelfer Report, or at least read second hand accounts of the parts Knight-Ridder doesn’t want you to read.



Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.