December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« Uh .... Good? | Main | Crusade, War, Struggle, Kampf, Whatever »

August 01, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Excellent rundown! I'll come back!

Think the glosses on #5 and #10 are my favorites.

Ow, ow, ow. I think a fuse blew in the humor synapses there.

My favorite is 7. I like the subtlety of 10. I hope you're right about 6's concluding premise...

Here is the set of posts Mithras is talking about. He changed his mind later about advocating torture, but those first couple of posts got a lot of play a few months ago.

He changed his mind later about advocating torture

He did not change his mind. He decided that it was unworkable due to other people's reactions. Not the same thing. He never abandoned his initial faulty premises.

Gah. You're talking about the judgeship. Well, I hope Mithras is right about that one too.

Well, I hope Mithras is right about that one too.

I am Mithras. I'm confused about whether you speak to people in the third person or if you're not addressing me.

Here's the crux of Volokh's "retraction":

What I found most persuasive about Mark's argument was his points about institutions: about how hard it would be for a jury system to operate when this punishment was available, and how its availability would affect gubernatorial elections, legislative elections, and who knows what else. Even if enough people vote to authorize these punishments constitutionally and legislatively (which I've conceded all along is highly unlikely), there would be such broad, deep, and fervent opposition to them -- much broader, deeper, and more fervent than the opposition to the death penalty -- that attempts to impose the punishments would logjam the criminal justice system and the political system.

In other words, squishy liberals would muck everything up. Not a retraction of the premise, at all.

That's where Red State comes from? Kudos to me for never thinking Tacitus was anything but a hack.

great rundown, Mithras. My favorite line: "Site gives off a strong scent of roast pork."

Throw some sharp provolone and broccoli rabe on that mofo.


Apologies for the confusion. I was talking to bellatrys in that last comment.

Great list. How many of the listed Right Wing blogs allow comments? Zero? Chicken-dookies!

I have commented several times on I was not booted off (suprisingly).

Keep up the good work.

Yeah, I meant about the judge thing. Volokh has been a target of mine before, even before he jumped on the cheerleading for torture bandwagon. I came up with a theory that everyone thinks of the Volokh Conspirators and Tacitus as "reasonable" conservatives because a) they can spell, b) every third word isn't a swear. By following the minimal deecency standards and wrapping atrocious ideas up in enough big words, it confuses liberals who don't realize that the pretty yellow-and-pink preying mantis that looks like a flower is just the same as the streamlined sinister green one they're familiar with...

Sorry to confuse you, Mithras - I thought this was one of the Group Blogs like CT, with multiple hosts.

"Ladies and Gentlemen:


- KANICKI in "Grease"

Interesting sidenote about Hinderocket: His great uncle was Chancellor of the University of California at Riverside in the glorious 60s and 70s. Ivan Hinderaker was in a constant war with then Guvner Reagan over academic freedom, liberal professors and all the usual crap that we are still arguing about today. I remember him as a thoughtful educator and a far cry from his shrill grand-nephew. I'm proud to have his sig on my diploma, not so proud to have RR's next to it.


Now that was some quality blogging.

I signed up for Typepad a few weeks ago. Apart from an ugly profile at Typepad, I have posted 5-6 times at Roger L Simon's site, all the posts being very polite to others, including Roger.

Today, he banned me from his site. Presumably because of the name.... Oh well, his site.

Maybe I'll get a new TypePad account as Moishe Yayin. (Moses Wine) Though I like Geffen better. (Vine.)

Who could forget FreeRepublic which had to be chosen as an obvious play on words since it's neither free nor a republic. It's more of a tyranny where those who are not in line are subject to execution. Of course it's not really a "blog" per se as it is a breeding ground for right-wing nazi-types and of course the millenial ultra-christian extremists (read whackos) Tolerating it for more than 10 minutes at a time is of course grounds for a lobotomy, which explains the behavior of many of it's regular "freepers"

CORRECTION: These are NOT "conservative" blogs in either the literal sense or the political sense. These are RIGHT-WING blogs.

The only possible way to see these as "conservative" blogs is view them through George Orwell's prism. These people refer to themselves as "conservative" because it was found to be a more appealing word than "fascist."

Call a spade a spade. Don't repeat their lies.

What, you pin Malkin to the wall and forget to go after her hairdresser? You slacker.

Tacitus is the undisputed commander of his domain, bow down before his overblown diction noooooooow! (sorry, channeling Giblets for a moment there...)



"Darfur is an especially favorite topic, because it both shows Islam in a bad light and has the advantage of not having to actually do anything."

The majority of the victims in Darfur are Muslims (the Christian victims are in the southern part of Sudan). While their deaths may be attribituted to the Islamic government behind the certainly doesn't put "Islam in a bad light" unless you also believe reporting about the violence in Iraq does the same.

While the right wing blogs are posting propaganda about least they're fucking writing about it.

What's your theory on why the a list liberal blogs ignore the subject entirely?

Ah, mithras. One would never know you're UID no.40(!); that you are a current participant at; that you have asked many times for the site feed; and that three persons have posted at with IP addresses remarkably close to yours -- first three octets, in fact -- and two have been banned.

All of which, coupled with this, says to me, "obsessive freakshow."

Anyway, you're welcome at either community anytime. RS does require that you not make a fool of yourself, but plenty of lefties do it, so take heart. As for my relationship with RS, and my standing in GOP circles, I leave you to puzzle that out. Ha.


Hi Josh! How's the basement looking today? Has mommy moved the lawnmower away from the window yet?

LGF *does* allow comments. All Charles Johnson does is cut-n-past the work of others for his "minions" to rage about.

Does everyone know that LGF is code for "little gook fuckers" from the 'nam era? Well, now you do. Why they don't just do all out and register as I don't know.

Heh. Sorry mithras, I take back the "freakshow" part.

You've been beat there.

So. A taxonomy of conservative blogs.

What's the point? You feel good for a moment, snap off a couple of cute lines, then publicize and validate your enemies. Makes no more sense than a junior-high pissing contest -- which it pretty much is.

Most of those upon whose gravitas you're trying to dance will be delighted you went to the trouble. They come from the old PR school: I don't care what you say about me, as long as you spell my name right.

Get over it. Get a job. Get laid. Get angry about something that matters.

A taxonomy of conservative bloggers does not matter.

No offense, PJ, but your opinion about what matters is irrelevant to me . You have no idea what I think matters (nor is there any reason you should). I like having links to different points of view and I am fully capable of deciding on my own whether or not Mithras' humorous take on right wing blogs is accurate. By inviting his readers to look at opposing views, Mithras is promoting and improving public discourse. That might not matter to you, but it does to me.

If providing this service also sates the PR jones of those sites, then there should be no reason to get testy about it. Making assumptions about Mithras' personal life falls squarely in the juvenile camp so it's a bit of the whole "pot, kettle, black" thing, isn't it?

One objective to this compendium was probably to get a lot of right wingers' undies in a bunch and watch them spit, fume and flail. Mission accomplished!

PJ, the irony in your post is overwhelming. I laughed my booty off at your shot at self righteous indignation. Thanks for bringing a smile to my face.

Ron Brynaert, why don't you do some freaking research before spouting off your assumptions/setting up straw men?

Corrente has been talking about this, among others, for over a year. A simple search (google is your friend) turned up no less than four separate Daily Kos posts on the subject without even trying. I've heard way more about Darfur, for way longer, from liberal bloggers - and partaken in more concerted efforts trying to pressure lawmakers sponsored by them - than I have seen anything of from theocon/meocon bloggers.

I once showed the incredibly bad judgement of poking Dean Esmay with a sharp stick, and he proceeded to rage at me and call me all sorts of nasty names in the comments on my blog until some time well after midnight, when I capitulated, declared defeat and went to bed, just to try and make it stop.

Never start an argument with a man that buys bile by the barrel. Some people have more rage to burn than there are hours in the day.

My problem is that I actually want to like Eugene Volokh (because of his tech & itsec background) and find him being a reasonable guy overall, but the obvious partisan intellectual self-castration and the disgusting torture episode keeps me from doing so.

Trust me, you do not want someone attempting the fiction above with the left side of the blog dial.

Kos and Atrios alone could fill about 20 posts. Throw in Democratic Underground and you have an easy trifecta.

Dying laughing. I just linked to the "Captain's" scary blog and couldn't believe my eyes when I saw he had actually posted his bloated pic. I fell off my chair. The bilious blunderer looks..well, exactly how I pictured him look. Bleary eyed, bloated and drooling.


You make my point, although probably not on purpose. I challenge neither the accuracy of Mithras' observations nor your right to publish them. I do argue that there is -- about the observations and their publication -- an air very much like that found and heard in a junior-high lunch room, where the table full of cool kids is giggling about the other kids' hair styles or braces. If that's what you want, please continue. Just as I will continue to campaign for raising, rather than lowering, the levels of political and social discourse in this country.

As to making assumptions about Mithras' personal life: No, I make none. My suggestions were offered generally to all. If you choose to take them personally, or to apply them specifically, that is your hang-up, not mine.

Obviously, neither our worlds nor our world views coincide. I will leave you with one bit of speculation, which you may take as advice, insult, or senile mumbling. It's a line from an old blues musician: I been your age. You ain't been mine.

RS does require that you not make a fool of yourself -- Tacitus.

No comment necessary, except to note that given Tacitus's hilarious pomposity, 'Red State' is actually a description of his complexion.

Trust me, you do not want someone attempting the fiction above with the left side of the blog dial.

Why don't YOU give it a try? As evidenced by your factless, disingenious and overall lame trolling attempts in Atrios' comments, your're a master at writing self-deluded fiction.

If it weren't for affirmative action , and the great amusement most people take in those who are confidantly contrary and without remorse for their ridiculous rantings, Michelle Malkin would be lucky to get a job stuffing fortunes into cookies!


Kinda like The Network.


Fucking Brilliant from schmeeve :: blog

The bright spark behind this blog is also 1/3 of powerline blog (
His name is John Hinderaker and he is apparently the moron responsible for this pathetic bit of literature:

A Stroke of Genius?

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Hyperbolic? Well, maybe. But consider Bush's latest master stroke: the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The pact includes the U.S., Japan, Australia, China, India and South Korea; these six countries account for most of the world's carbon emissions. The treaty is, in essence, a technology transfer agreement. The U.S., Japan and Australia will share advanced pollution control technology, and the pact's members will contribute to a fund that will help implement the technologies. The details are still sketchy and more countries may be admitted to the group later on. The pact's stated goal is to cut production of "greenhouse gases" in half by the end of the century.

What distinguishes this plan from the Kyoto protocol is that it will actually lead to a major reduction in carbon emissions! This substitution of practical impact for well-crafted verbiage stunned and infuriated European observers.

I doubt that the pact will make any difference to the earth's climate, which will be determined, as always, by variations in the energy emitted by the sun. But when the real cause of a phenomenon is inaccessible, it makes people feel better to tinker with something that they can control. Unlike Kyoto, this agreement won't devastate the U.S. economy, and, also unlike Kyoto, the agreement will reduce carbon emissions in the countries where they are now rising most rapidly, India and China. Brilliant.

But I don't suppose President Bush is holding his breath, waiting for the crowd to start applauding.

Posted by John at 03:01 PM

Figures I'd get Atriosed on the day I have a hangover.

One would never know you're UID no.40(!); that you are a current participant at; that you have asked many times for the site feed;

Dude, the existence of this post should clue you in that maybe the fact that I want to read the feed is not an expression of solidarity.

and that three persons have posted at with IP addresses remarkably close to yours -- first three octets, in fact -- and two have been banned.

What a strange statement. I always post as Mithras and always own up when people ban me - multiple personas is like adultery: too complicated to be worth it. And I would guess that IPs may sometimes share digits. In any case, twasn't me, McGee.

Is the point of your comment that this discussion is beneath you? I recommend the "Back" button.

That's not a taxonomy.

It's a dictionary.

And I could do without the sexist language. Isn't Malkin's writings enough fodder for complaint? Must you also denigrate her for being a woman?

Subscribe to feeds you detest? Strange dude.

Anyway, just for kicks, I invite all here to join in the Tacitus book club. Nope, not a joke.

Well, the one for the left side of the blogosphere is much shorter:

Lefty Blogs: Mostly Harmless

You know, it's interesting to see just how much stick-up-the-ass angry some of the right-wing facists are when someone pulls their nose.

Oh, BTW, that was a very funny Top-10 list, especially Michelle Malkin who, frankly, frightens me more than Ann Coulter.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog

Philadelphia Bloggers