« Also, Omar. | Main | Libertarians »

December 11, 2006

I Proudly Endorse...

Eh, these awards are already fucked, and Althouse is being so mean-spirited and vindictive about the contest, I feel no guilt. Go vote for the Moderate Voice -- an actual centrist blog in the centrism category, and a good blog to boot. Vote early, vote often, and vote proudly. And if you need further incentive, this should do nicely. Althouse is one of the more loathsome participants in the blogosphere, while Joe Gandelman's Moderate Voice has long strived to help smaller blogs and inject some calm evenhandedness into the debate. Now, I'm not actually a fan of calm evenhandedness, but that's what this award is supposed to denote, so go vote.

December 11, 2006 | Permalink


Jesus Christ, is Althouse running for eighth grade class council president or something? I've never seen someone outside of junior high spew so much bile over something so utterly trivial.

Posted by: Christmas | Dec 11, 2006 5:00:32 PM

The only surprise is that people are still surprised when Althouse does something petty and juvenile.

Posted by: Pooh | Dec 11, 2006 5:53:32 PM

The woman has a sociopathic streak that I think she keeps in check when not blogging via valium. What else can explain her inability to keep her train of thought when lecturing?

Posted by: fishbane | Dec 11, 2006 6:57:15 PM

Are you a student of hers, Fishbane? I would LOVE to hear a description of her classroom demeanor...My imagination is of a lightweight and incoherent parody of Kingsfield from The Paper Chase.

Posted by: Pooh | Dec 11, 2006 7:41:29 PM

I'm just appalled that I wasn't nominated for this category...

Posted by: TigerHawk | Dec 11, 2006 8:13:29 PM

I already voted for Moderate Voice a few days ago as I read it and like it. It is well written and informative and fun.
I don't always agree with it but, that's half the fun.
They are totally cool.
Thanks for mentioning them.

Posted by: vwcat | Dec 11, 2006 11:12:59 PM

I voted for MV every day so far.

Posted by: coturnix | Dec 12, 2006 12:17:11 AM

What's so bad about Althouse? Aside from her little dust up with the chick from feministing, which was very petty, she seems pretty harmless to me. Then again, who's more petty than third-wavers like those at feministing?
Actually, she's pretty entertaining. I really like her diavlogging on bloggingheads.tv, especially the one with Matt Yglesias.
And I'm pretty sure she could run circles around anyone here when it comes to constitutional law or civil procedure.
Maybe you're just upset because she's winning by quite a lot.

Posted by: oswald | Dec 12, 2006 2:21:08 AM

-there's very little third-wavey about femininsting. They're second-wavers all the way, they believe in the basically universal nature of the category of "women", for instance, believe in secularism and liberalism generally. It's all pre-Butlerian feminism. If there are any actual third-wave feminist blogs, I'd be interested to see them

-Althouse is also responsible for defending Padilla's treatment by arguing that he could have been blinking secret messages to imams on the Venezuelan space station or whatever.

-She has pathetically kissed up to Instapundit for links and recognition

-Althouse has defended Bush v. Gore on the world's thinnest of substantial grounds.

-I think you're massively underestimating the degree to which she made an ass of herself in the "dust-up" with Feministing. She called them "breast-bloggers" for the offense of absolutely nothing more than having breasts and wearing sweaters. It was ridiculous, and badly anti-feminist. I wrote her off after that episode.

Posted by: DivGuy | Dec 12, 2006 7:46:56 AM

What's so bad about Althouse? Aside from her little dust up with the chick from feministing, which was very petty, she seems pretty harmless to me.

I wasn't sure whether to reply to your post, but this bit in particular seemed relevant. You're right (probably not how you meant it, though). Althouse is harmless. Law degrees aren't that rare in blogs. Nor are her interest or opinions, and her writing is articulate but far from eloquent. The one thing that sets Althouse apart is how petty she is. Constantly, completely, ridiculously petty. Padilla's treatment, like DivGuy pointed out. Or her complaints about the use of "christianism" where she devoted more words to how Sullivan didn't link to her than anything else.

This is one choice example I found just now in a post about Romney:

IN THE COMMENTS: Shaun Mullen, author of the Moderate Voice post, drops by, hangs around, and eventually provokes me to say "Does Joe know you're screwing up his blog?"

The one part of her exchange in the comments she singled out with an update to the post was a passive-aggressive insult for which she blamed the target. Classy.

Maybe you're just upset because she's winning by quite a lot.

... and clearly, you follow her example whenever possible.

Posted by: Cyrus | Dec 12, 2006 9:12:51 AM

Oh my god, that Ann Althouse is SUCH a cünt.

And, no, this isn't comment spam.

Posted by: jimmmm | Dec 12, 2006 10:09:14 AM

And I'm pretty sure she could run circles around anyone here when it comes to constitutional law or civil procedure.

(holding it back)...(hand over mouth)...(aw screw it) BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA. Defending Bush v. Gore (or attempting to) on substantive legal grounds almost per se dings her. For a "law blogger" she talks surprising little about, you know, the law, probably because whenever she tries, she gets skewered by people who actually like to know what they are talking about (e.g. Balkin and/or

Posted by: Pooh | Dec 12, 2006 2:01:53 PM

Althouse is petty, mean-spirited, and vacuous. I truly pity her students. The comment by Oswald above is right out of the Althouse playbook too--petty and off-topic.

Posted by: Charles Giacometti | Dec 12, 2006 2:37:38 PM

What's wrong about Althouse that she's an object lesson in bad argumentation. She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero. More recently, as she's turned into the Norma Desmond of the blogosphere, her first reaction to any criticism is to immediately freak out and claim her interlocuter didn't understand what she said, which often works because she usually stops short of making an point (something rhetoriticians refer to as the Instapundit Defense).

She's not a freeper maniac or an NRO cryptofacist. Hell, she votes for Russ Feingold. Her politics aren't gruesome, but her personality is, which is why it's fun (if a little unhealthy) to push her buttons.

Posted by: whetstone | Dec 12, 2006 3:39:41 PM

agh, my post got cut off...just assume it was exceptionally witty...

Posted by: Pooh | Dec 12, 2006 3:59:01 PM

I don't read this blog very much, but I wanted to comment because I am a student of Ann Althouse and a reader of her blog. I disagreed with her treatment of Jessica from feministing. Jessica has breasts and she smiles when pictures are taken, and none of this makes her a bad feminist. I am not defending Althouse's comments on that topic; I disagree with them. But I am going to defend her as a professor. She is a very good professor. I have no problem following her train of thought, and that thought pretty much always ends up pinpointing the most prescient and insightful questions. Also, her blog is pretty fun.

Posted by: clairedm | Dec 12, 2006 4:08:30 PM

I think you're taking Althouse way too seriously. She's quirky, independent, contrarian and has a sense of humor. She is a centrist in the sense that she has opinions all over the map, and is not, however you might think, beholden to one or another party or strict ideology. She may not be the most "moderate" blogger but I'd say she still legitimately qualifies as "centrist" in the way Andrew Sullivan would. In my opinion, sometimes she might get a little nasty, engage in gratuitous Democrat-bashing or show what I consider undue deference to wrongheaded thinking, but she also has an active sense of humor that doesn't translate well to the visitor who only reads her occassional controversial post. If a constitutional law professor sounds like she's running for student council, perhaps she is being a bit tongue-in-cheek? Maybe?

If you like Moderate Voice, go vote for Moderate Voice, but Althouse is not the root of all evil.

Posted by: Joseph Hovsep | Dec 12, 2006 4:09:35 PM

And Andrew Sullivan is not a centrist. Just because you don't vote Democrat doesn't mean you're not a conservative. Andrew, after all, just wrote a book espousing a literal theory of conservatism.

Posted by: Ezra | Dec 12, 2006 5:37:04 PM

I don't understand how Althouse qualifies as a centrist, in any sense other than that she repeatedly proclaims what a centrist she is. Gee, maybe we should just name Instapundit as the best centrist blog and be done with it.

Posted by: Steve | Dec 12, 2006 5:42:37 PM

Ann Althouse is the Harriet Miers of supermodel blawging with an IQ that matches her breast size.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | Dec 12, 2006 6:41:30 PM

"And I'm pretty sure she could run circles around anyone here when it comes to constitutional law or civil procedure."

Heh, that is hilarious. Below please see the link to my favorite two examples of her analytical failings as a legal scholar:

1. Worst use the word "arguably" when admitting defeat in a question of procedure.

2. Her confusion over, as she said, ""the weird repetition of the strange word 'undisputedly' throughout the opinion"".


Good stuff, she got her ass handed to her there, and I think that pretty conclusively proves her failings as a civil proceduralist.

As for constitutional law, given she runs a legal blog and would rather talk about the tits on a blogger in a photo with Clinton than the violations of constitutional law "undisputably" carried about by the executive branch, well, face it, she sucks.

Posted by: Slim | Dec 12, 2006 7:01:51 PM

Slim's link as a link.

Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Dec 12, 2006 7:13:02 PM

Andrew Sullivan was a bad example, but Ann Althouse is not a conservative but any stretch.

Posted by: Joseph Hovsep | Dec 12, 2006 10:54:48 PM

Sorry, DivGuy, they're died-in-the-wool third wavers over at feministing...no doubt about it.

Posted by: oswald | Dec 13, 2006 2:06:14 AM

"The comment by Oswald above is right out of the Althouse playbook too--petty and off-topic"

Off topic? I thought the discussion here was about some ridiculously trivial poll and how terrible Ann is. I think that post touched on both quite nicely.

Despite Greenwald's snarky blog post(shocking), I don't believe that her general position regarding the Taylor decision has been proven wrong- and I'd be willing to wager that the ruling will be overturned.

That aside, whoever claimed that she was infallible anyway? I just said that she was harmless and entertaining- and sometimes petty. Sort of like a lot of the posts above, mine included. It's not like we're debating her qualifications for a f*cking Fields Medal or Nobel.

Pooh- the term "law blogger" on her site is a quote from Slate. But you're right, anyone reading her blog could clearly see that her blogging interests skew toward pop culture and photography. So what? She's required to teach you law in her classes(and quite well according to Claire), not on her blog. And I noticed that you didn't list yourself as her peer on matters of constitutional law or civil procedure. Why not? That clearly was my point.

Nice post, Claire.

Posted by: oswald | Dec 13, 2006 2:51:32 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.