I KNEW It: Instapundit Has Been Supporting A Nut Job

Ooooh, not good. I swear it happened just like this:

I took a look over at the cow's and there's a link to a doozy of an article on Ann Althouse - something in Reason Magazine that I'd never seen before - showing she's pulled this crazy schtick before. In public. Like for realz:

"Once the topic had been broached over dinner, I turned to another tablemate who is a fervent Catholic intellectual to discuss some bioethical stuff. We had brought up transhumanism during one of the sessions earlier in the day. The two of us were having a perfectly civil conversation about the moral status of embryos. Anyway next thing I know, Ann Althouse is shouting at two of our dinner companions demanding that they prove to her (Althouse) that they are not racists! She kept asking over and over, 'How do I know that I'm not sitting at a table full of racists?' This was completely bizarre! It should go without saying, but I will say it: No one at the conference could even remotely be accused of being racist."

This guy, Ronald Bailey, Reason's science correspondent (you can't make this stuff up) even nails her classic debating style - from all the way back in 2006:

"...Because she didn't want to appear to be hypocrite, she refused to answer and kept asking more and more abstract questions about their example. When she was backed into a corner, she lashed out, suggesting that people who disagreed with her feelings were racists. Eventually, she was so upset that she began crying. Of course, at that point the possibility of civil intellectual discourse completely evaporated. 

I was also astonished by the poise with which my tablemates handled Althouse. Our companions did not raise their voices nor dismiss her (as I would have), but tried to calm her down. In fact, Althouse made the situation even more personal by yelling repeatedly at one of my dinner companions (who is also a colleague) that she was an 'intellectual lightweight' and an 'embarrassment to women everywhere.' In fact, in my opinion, with that statement Althouse had actually identified herself. Before Althouse stalked away, I asked her to apologize for that insult, but she refused."

Bingo. And she (and especially Meade) thinks The Macho RESPONSE is out of place, or even something to be mocked, when faced with that insanity. The truth comes in Bailey's conclusion, one that has to pass through the mind of any thinking person, observing Ann over time:

"I sure hope that Ann Althouse's behavior at the Liberty Fund colloquium is not example how 'intellectual discourse' is conducted in her law school classes in Madison, Wisconsin. In her bloggingheads.tv discussion with my friend Jonah Goldberg (who was a participant in the Meyer colloquium) she keeps telling him that he shouldn't be her enemy. I may not be her enemy, but given her outrageous behavior and completely baseless insinuations about intelligent humane people, I sure don't want to be her friend. As she said, 'I need to be more vigilant.'"

Shit, she needs to put Bailey's column in the "ABOUT" section of her banner,...