Thursday, November 29, 2012

Did Merely Supporting A Cult Kill The Republican Party?

Glenn Reynolds - after the election:
I kept going on and on about the importance of showing up, and that seems to have been what mattered. Why didn’t people show up?
Yours Truly - before the election:
When is Glenn Reynolds going to stop settling for being popular and start to matter? 

At this point, I have much more interest in Glenn Beck - who speaks truth to power when we need it most - than the hey-look-at-this/it-could-be-this-way-it-could-be-that/I'll-wait-to-see-how-the-wrongs-play-out nonsense of Glenn Reynolds. I mean, he says he'll start acting like there's an environmental crisis when the green meanies do. Well, I feel the same way about Glenn Reynolds on a whole host of other issues, that are just as important - and, as he knows, are bleeding us dry as we speak. 
You guys make jokes about it but - seriously - you are professors, and some of us expect more of you. We need more of you. Right now, in my opinion, you're not too many steps above AGW scientists, insisting your critics are the crazy ones and we should just accept that you, as gatekeepers, dish out the best information we have. It's bullshit and anyone with a functioning brain - anyone who sees through conventional wisdom - can see it. 

I think many of our online gatekeepers are a big part of why this country is having such a hard time getting moving again.
You can't say I didn't try. And I should point out, here, that Glenn Reynolds (and Ann Althouse) backed Mitt Romney and Mia Love - who I rejected - and who both lost.

But - like moving your hands in the air to talk economics - that's really no measure of anything.

You'll also notice there's a word "at this point" for a Mormon, Glenn Beck - before he went over the deep end - which should reveal all the "bigot" talk from Reynolds, Althouse, and all the rest, for the bogus blather it always was.

The entire election was simply conducted wrong, from top to bottom, by everybody - starting with not vetting Romney - and you can't win elections that way.

Facing reality is all they've got,…but they can't do that. It's too horrifying even for Ann:
"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. 
In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained, in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy." 
A paragraph from an old Supreme Court case that feels like something some people who ought to know better have forgotten. Boldface added.
I think "people who ought to know better" should check that suggestion of "sharp differences" - like there's nothing objective we can hold them against to see what's true. For instance, remember Mitt Romney getting weasle-y about those "revelations" his cult's prophets have?

No, Ann can't mean anything like that - because that's not an accusation, but Mitt getting caught red-handed - which SHE IGNORED for the sake of politics. So, no, it's got to be something else. It's gotta be! Something somebody else said - not the candidate she was backing.

Here's a recent comment from the propaganda minister about why I stopped participating on her blog:
The Crack flounce-off coincided with our lack of response to his attacks on Mormons.

Sure - she's now engaged in Benghazi conspiracy theories, and during the election couldn't even stand questions about Mormonism without her spidey sense tingling. Is that the "lack of response" to which she's referring? Ahh, such innocence,....

She also must've forgotten there's a record of when I left the Althouse blog, and I made my reasons pretty clear - it was over her applauding Glenn Reynolds' threatening of BuzzFeed and the accompanying suggestion I was envious for "linky-love" - but there was no mention of Mormonism:
Shit, watching this megalomaniac routine of threatening other bloggers is like watching the Kill Bill movies, and finding them big, bloated, soulless, and utterly without merit.

Here - I'll make the point clear:

Ann, I am formally requesting to be taken off of your blog roll.

If the world ends, I'll let you know.
So, the world hasn't ended, and it is Ann Althouse who's engaged in false statement.

I didn't leave because of her "lack of response," but because of she and Reynolds' very-enthusiastic (and I've always said Nazi-like) slide into unethical behavior. As one delusional Republican channeling Ann recently said: 
“Well, I guess that’s one lawyer… I post for people to see and think about things and reflect about things. I don’t know if it’s realistic.”
Unrealistic is Althouse (and Instapundit) in a nutshell. Is Ann even aware of what goes on over there?
Dude I left there too when I felt disrespected and I will not go back.

As Trooper York. 

So I respect you for your stand. 

But you have to realize that most people don't give a shit.

As a friend I have to tell you something brother.

Get over yourself.
Not a chance, Troop - Ann, this one's for you, baby. Repeat after me:

Black Michael Jackson knows all,...


  1. I do not get this beef you have with Glenn Reynolds (but I did not get your whole Mitt Romney beef either). That said, I am enjoying the work of the artist formerly known as Glenn Beck.

  2. Sure - she's now engaged in Benghazi conspiracy theories,

    Do you disagree there are unanswered questions? Given the press, how does one get answers?


    By the way, on another Ann, Ann Coulter, she's arguing that the Wealthy are keeping Obama in power. I say, Great! Let them have what they want.