Altmouse

Imposters.

2007-01-07T17:16:00.000-08:00

Someone is blogging at another blog with something close to my name. She even has a ridiculous "caricature" of me up, and she is stealing all my good ideas about nonpartisanship. What should I do?

ADDED: I have contacted the blogger in question but the blog is not yet taken down. Maybe it is too early to start talking about unethical activity. But if my blog is not the top result for all Technorati searches by 6PM Monday, that blogger will be asking for it. A transgression of this magnitude will require at least 200K hits to make right. What a shocking breach of blogger ethics!

UPDATE: Here is a picture I drew at a conference I went to about libertarianism. It is a picture of me and Satan. I am holding a lolly. The "Satan" represents another blogger who was at the conference. But I will not say who it is, or what flavor the lolly is. Unlike certain other bloggers, I have blogging ethics when I blog about bloggers.

Hark the hallowed mittens itch.

2006-12-25T22:27:00.000-08:00

Of course I blog on Christmas! But tonight one of the cats that freezes on my roof slid off and conked me out. The New York Times I have delivered woke me up. This is why I will not cancel it. If you want to call me a "conservative" now, feel free. Why should I cancel my New York Times subscription? It is very heavy! It has dead frozen cats in it! I need to have its heft at my doorstep, otherwise I might forget that I live next door to a bunch of silly hippies whose newspapers weigh very little. Stupid not dead cats Madison losers without New York Times subscriptions! Why don't they buy me coffee?

This last Supreme Court term was very interesting. In some ways it was not so interesting, but fascinatingly so.

Here is how I dance.

1. How to make Altmouse left wing. 2. How to make Altmouse right wing.

2006-12-22T21:13:00.000-08:00

1. Embed her in Madison and bring her coffee.

2. Make her talk to people who are left wing and therefore very partisan.

Nothing bothers me more than people who believe in things. I never believe that anyone ever believes in anything, so when I meet them, I try not believe that they believe anything. I am very charitable that way.

People who believe things sometimes do things, and that is just so silly! Why can't they accept the challenge, as I have, of not believing anything? I resent zealots of all sorts, especially the ones who criticize me. Don't they see that in the very act of criticizing me, they are proving my point, that only someone who is is inferior to me even ever has a "point" to begin with?

We need more citizens willing to take a stand like I do, which is to be totally against ever taking any sort of a stand.

What color is your soul?

2006-12-21T14:43:00.000-08:00

I have not posted in a week because I was wondering what my soul would look like on the Internet. I finally found it!

I don't suppose any of the left-wing bloggers who are my enemies will understand this, though. Their souls are like robots. They should have souls that are more like toasters, or perhaps fried dough.

UPDATE: I am constantly attacked by bloggers who are passive aggressive, driven by their insatiable egos. I just post whatever waltzes into my head here in my lonely outpost in Madison, Wisconsin. Do you know why I am so critical of liberals? Because here in Madison I am surrounded by liberals! And none of them is as smart as I am! Why do they not bring me coffee in the morning in my office? Why do I have to buy it at Starbucks? They are so lazy!

The blogger bears' picnic.

2006-12-12T18:04:00.000-08:00

Here is a picture of the Tom DeLay blogger's lunch. Let's just array these bloggers... randomly.

Do you see what I see? I've put in an arrow...

UPDATE: That's right. Look at what that blogger on the right is reading.

Exactly.

Cockblogging.

UPDATE: If you're going to be called on cockblogging, just admit it! How childish.

UPDATE: Some commenters are saying that there may also be a gratuitous sexualized picture of a woman in this cartoon. Where? I think sometimes people read too much into things.

"Did blogger Ann Altmouse encounter rudeness or antidisestablishmentarianism from a rude partisan blogger?"

2006-12-11T18:59:00.000-08:00

Apparently Glenn talks about me in his new podcast. Where is Helen in that podcast, though? Perhaps she was worried about being attacked by Democratic political operatives, like this person, who apparently cannot stop attacking her without betraying a pathological hatred of men. Honestly, it is very hard to tell who these people hate more, men or women. I have explained this before. Why should I have to explain it again? There are all these fervid polibloggers gasping with horror at everything I say -- even in the comments! Why do they do this if they are not going to remember all of my arguments, all of which have substance?

Q: Didn't you say that it was stupid to call someone stupid, but then you called the bad Glenn stupid?

A: Yes. But then I am like Walt Whitman. Obviously! And you are ignoring the context, where I proved that Glenn Greenwald writes like a slimeball because his posts are very long and he never links to me except sometimes.

Q: Oooh, mittens!

A: What a hoot!

UPDATE: I listened to the podcast, though it was hard to push the "play button" because I was wearing my mittens. Glenn talks about how to get traffic at your blog. He neglects to mention how annoying it is when people like Andrew Sullivan pick blogfights with you and then refuse to give you a link. But he also talks about how inexcusably rude this TRex character was to me at a blogger party. He "growled and kept on typing" at me!

It was not very brave of her to do this. It was passive-aggressive! If there is one thing I dislike, it is passive-aggressiveness. It's almost as bad as childish sarcasm. I hate childish sarcasm! It is boring and deeply unserious.

It is also very ironic that someone named "T-Rex" would be passive-aggressive. That dinosaur was not passive-aggressive at all! Not like the Trachodon. That dinosaur was very passive-aggressive and never engaged in a process of sincere self-reflection. What a stupid dinosaur.

UPDATE: Looks like this totally humorless blog is getting all snippy! Oooooh, how horrible I am! What a stinker! Like their blog is so cool. And they are so cool. Doobooly DER-hey!

Why do all my enemies think that everything needs to be so serious all the time? They are so silly! And I hate how they change the "rules" halfway through any "debate." That is so childish.

UPDATE: Hee hee! I think underpants worn by bloggers named "Glenn" should be called "Glennderpants." Bad Glennderpants would be the kind that Britney Spears does not wear because they are itchy.

Britney Spears's uncovered vagina makes my blog look good.

2006-12-09T18:58:00.000-08:00

I was only blogging about Camille Paglia, but for some reason Sitemeter is recording a lot of hits for Britney Spears's vagina, which she takes out in public with her without putting underpants on it first. I don't know why Camille Paglia and Britney Spears are the same person or why they do not wear underwear.

But this is the lesson: women who do not wear underwear grab your attention. This is something you would not have known unless you read my blog.

UPDATE: I did a Barfingheads today with Jonah Goldberg, where we talked about sex and religion and science fiction, and politics. Unfortunately, the camera that was recording it began to spontaneously melt three minutes in. How weird! So you can't hear it. Oddly enough, all the tech engineers also killed themselves by stabbing themselves in the eyes with pencils. How odd!

Get the message?

2006-12-05T16:57:00.000-08:00

Too many partisans are attacking me because they do not believe that messages can be transmitted by blinking. I hope this teaches them a lesson.

Understand?

UPDATE: I hope this fellow appreciates that I will not start a blogwar with him. GAZE INTO MY EYES, PARTISAN!

UPDATE: This woman has a lot to apologize for as well.

Long blog posts.

2006-12-04T19:44:00.000-08:00

Edit them. I'm not impressed. I am frowning.

Shape up.

UPDATE: Why do nonentities like blogfights? Nonentities are bad, but nonpartisans are good. I think too many people are confused by nons. That is why their posts are too long. Try harder.

No, that is much too expensive.

2006-12-04T06:37:00.000-08:00

A fascinating article in the New York Times reveals the shocking truth -- many bloggers are partisans! They pretend to be interested in politics, but then they go out and work for political campaigns! What hypocrites. It's like The National Journal says:

I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense.

It's so ironic that now the bloggers have become The Establishment. I guess it's true -- the only cool rebels left are me, Glenn Reynolds, and David Broder. They should remake Easy Rider and we should be the stars! That would be a hoot. Vroom vroom! Motorcycles!

But the really interesting thing that the National Journal shows is just how easy it is for politicians to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to bloggers, and in return the bloggers will give them absolutely free advertising. What a scam, to pay so much money to get something for free. This is one of the dangers of partisanship.

UPDATE: Why are pathetic nonentities like this one always trying to get me to link to them? I absolutely refuse. I think blogfights are so petty.

UPDATE: Giggle! I think a link from a blogger named Glenn should be called a "glink"! How fun! If Glenn Reynolds were named Flenn Freynolds, though, a link from him would be a "flink," and that would be no fun at all. How boring!

UPDATE: Ha! I used "free" on purpose. It was a clever trick and the partisans were fooled yet again.

Naked people are very cold when they go outside naked in the cold.

2006-12-01T19:36:00.000-08:00

Crap boogers! I just ran outside in my pajamas --I'm blogging in my pajamas, what a hoot! -- because I thought they had delivered my New York Times. I had heard a distinctive wet "slap" outside in the gutter, where they usually throw my paper. But this was only another dead cat that had fallen off of my roof. I don't know why, but there are always lots of dead cats falling off of my roof. I am going to have to move.

While I was standing in the gutter looking for the newspaper I heard the door shut and lock behind me. And then the newspaper truck came and threw the NYTimes on my head! How rotten. At least it was not the Sunday edition.

It is a good thing that I brought my laptop with me so I can still blog!

UPDATE: There is a Cinemax documentary on nudity tonight. It occurs to me that naked people would look very silly without their clothes on. Also, it is nonpartisa xxxlnln SADJCALJSC;L;$&$&)_)))nnnn

wekjjkweAJMSM

UPDATE: Ooops! Another dead cat just fell on my laptop. Why all the dead cats? What a mystery!

I have a camera.

2006-11-30T14:15:00.000-08:00

And I use it to take pictures! Here is a picture of one of the older buildings on the campus:

It may look chilly, but in fact it is not very cold here in Wisconsin at all. Can you see the man wearing flip-flops?

Here is a picture of the building where I have my office. It looks a little foreboding, but in the summer it is very pleasant.

I refuse to engage in a blog-fight with Andrew Sullivan because he viciously refuses to link to me.

2006-11-28T17:40:00.000-08:00

I am above all intrablogicological blogging blogger blogblogwars, as my loyal commenters know. It is only the partisanship of others that causes me to constantly be involved in blog-fights. After all, if everyone would simply agree with me, as they should because my opinions are nonpartisan, then they would have no cause to disagree with what I say. Why is this so hard for them to understand?

Besides, I hate the tawdry, childish namecalling that can so often characterize the blogosphere, the kind of silly namecalling that poisonous little putrid partisan toads like Glenn Greenwald delight in. He writes so badly! His sentences can be very long and are full of many different words. How duh of him!

Greenwald objects to the sensible objection to Andrew Sullivan's constant use of the term "Christianist" on the grounds that sensible Christians might object to it. After all, the term "Islamicists" refers to very bad evil Muslims. The term "Christianist" therefore makes no sense! Christians are not Muslims! Also, Andrew Sullivan makes condescending fun of Mormons for wearing underwear and being governors of Massachussetts and therefore Mormonists. Has he no concept of how insulting that is to Heartland Christians?

What is worse, he even titles a post "The Mormon Question." How tone-deaf can you get! Now, it seems Andrew Sullivan hates Irish Catholics too! Clearly he has no sympathy for the feelings of Irish Catholics. How sad.

I think it is important to remember that words have meanings. Take the word "nonpartisan." That word means that I am right. This is all very clear.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan refuses to link to me! What a shocking breach of blogger ethics. Why did he go so far out of his way to pick a Bloggerfightwar with me if he is going to stubbornly refuse to drive up my hit count? This is simply outrageous behavior.

Yoo, hoo! Jerry! It is all right that I call you Jerry.

2006-11-24T22:09:00.001-08:00

Michael Richards said many mean and racist things. Does that make it hard to watch Seinfeld reruns?

No, not if you have the TiVo. I have the TiVo. I did not even mean to watch Seinfeld reruns, but the Tivo made me! The TiVo recorded an episode where Jerry and Elaine were having a conversation, and the conversation was about how Jerry and Elaine were living in New York City and dating people and how that was funny. But then Kramer entered the room, and all I could see was Michael Richards! So I turned it off, but I think the TiVo kept watching it, and laughing. So if it was ethically right to turn the show off, that is what I did. If it was not ethically right to turn it off, I can watch it later. This is called "nonpartisanship."

But it is clear that the show's producers made a big mistake by not making racism one of Kramer's humorous foibles, like how nobody knew how he made money or how he yelled a lot. None of the characters were perfect, and that was part of the joke! If it was funny that they would park in a handicapped-only parking space, why wouldn't it be just as funny for Kramer to start randomly screaming "nigger!" in the diner?

What a hoot! Here is my suggestion:

JERRY! I KNOW YOU READ MY BLOG! DO A FUNNY REUNION SHOW WHERE KRAMER STARTS SCREAMING THE WORD NIGGER!

That would be the best way to make Kramer "loveable" again.

I think this is excellent advice and I do not see a downside.

Yoo, hoo! Jerry! It is all right that I call you Jerry.

2006-11-24T22:09:00.000-08:00

Michael Richards said many mean and racist things. Does that make it hard to watch Seinfeld reruns?

No, not if you have TiVo. I have TiVo. I did not even mean to watch Seinfeld reruns, but the Tivo made me! The TiVo recorded an episode where Jerry and Elaine were having a conversation, and the conversation was about how Jerry and Elaine were living in New York City and dating people and how that was funny. But then Kramer entered the room, and all I could see was Michael Richards! So I turned it off, but I think the TiVo kept watching it, and laughing. So if it was ethically right to turn the show off, that is what I did. If it was not ethically right to turn it off, I can watch it later. This is called "nonpartisanship."

But it is clear that the show's producers made a big mistake by not making racism one of Kramer's humorous foibles, like how nobody knew how he made money or how he yelled a lot. None of the characters were perfect, and that was part of the joke! If it was funny that they would park in a handicapped-only parking space, why wouldn't it be just as funny for Kramer to start randomly screaming "nigger!" in the diner?

What a hoot! Here is my suggestion:

JERRY! I KNOW YOU READ MY BLOG! DO A FUNNY REUNION SHOW WHERE KRAMER STARTS SCREAMING THE WORD NIGGER!

That would be the best way to make Kramer "loveable" again.

I think this is excellent advice and I do not see a downside.

If boredom were Camille Paglia, would that be interesting?

2006-04-11T20:10:00.000-07:00

I was recently disinvited to a dinner with Camille Paglia. That is a shame. Our conversation would have been scintillating.

MORE: I was thinking about boredom lately as I was reading some blog posts. No, not your blog. Is boredom partisan? I was of course not bored. I was very interested. Is it very interesting to talk about boredom? B -O -R - E- D -O - M. It occurs to me that the word "boredom" looks like the word "bedroom" if you read it very quickly. Many lawprofs are boring. Why are they so boring? I need to look up the word "boredom" on the Google. Hold on a sec.

UPDATE: I'm wondering if the stories about nuking Iran are true. Would the nuking be partisan? Or the stories about the nuking?

UPDATE: Kellie Pickler go lickler banana fo-fana-bo-bickler, Kellie Pickler!

UPDATE: Some people say that Robin Williams has made many movies that are a little bit mawkish. What do you think?

UPDATE: Look, a ball of twine! How fun!

Kos on Colbert is very partisan.

2006-04-06T20:50:00.000-07:00

Why did Markos Moulitsas go on the Colbert Report? He must have known that he would be mercilessly parodied. I understand the true humor of Stephen Colbert. He makes fun of partisans. Poor Markos looked like a partisan, with his support of Democratic politicians. He should have represented himself and his book in a less partisan way, as being about ice cream or nice summer days. How can anyone expect to win votes by acting like a political partisan? How silly!

Indeed, partisanship kills. But maybe it kills the one it loves. As Matt Welch writes,

I can’t shake the feeling of nostalgia for a promising cross-partisan moment that just fizzled away. Americans are always much more interesting than their political parties or ideological labels, and for a few months there it was possible for readers and writers alike to feel the unfamiliar slap of collisions with worlds they’d previously sealed off from themselves. You couldn’t predict what anyone would say, especially yourself.

I disagree. New, magical blogs are appearing every day. It is very exciting! What is so exciting is how individuals are releasing their originality and their personalities, saying things that are new. You could not hear about this sort of thing before! The wonder of blogging is that it releases the scintillating originality of the original mind. How wonderful! Hooray for the original, daring individual mind!

UPDATE: Hmmmm. Very interesting.

UPDATE: There are many important legal issues involved here.

UPDATE: What do you think?.

UPDATE: So true. So true.

UPDATE: I don't care.

UPDATE: Big American Idol tonight!

UPDATE: Indeed. Blogging is a liberating medium of personal expression. What a wonder of modern democracy!

Italians are very saucy.

2006-03-29T20:13:00.000-08:00

I find it very shocking that anyone is bothered that Berlusconi insulted Mao. That is so silly! If Berlusconi were to have been truly rude, he would have insulted the Chinese national hero, General Tso.

Italians have such an amusing sense of humor! But The Boston Herald does not. They need to relax! Justice Scalia was only making a traditional Sicilian gesture, like this one:

"Maybe we should just suspend the Confrontation Clause in spousal abuse cases."

2006-03-22T19:51:00.000-08:00

That's what Justice Scalia wittily said during Davis v Washington, a case about whether or not a 911 transcript can be used against a defendant even if the caller later changes her mind. This often happens when women who are being beaten are later so childish as to change their minds about their original complaint in a domestic abuse case.

Two years ago, however, the Supreme Court issued an unmistakable warning that these efforts were likely to collide with the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which guarantees to a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

In Crawford v. Washington, the court laid down a new rule: a "testimonial" statement made out of court cannot be used at trial unless the person who made the statement is available for cross-examination....

[Adrian M.] Davis's lawyers argued on appeal that the admission of the 911 tape violated his right to confrontation, but the Washington Supreme Court said the call was not testimonial. It was, the court said, a request for "help to be rescued from peril."...

Mr. Fisher, a Seattle lawyer who successfully argued the Crawford case, said the purpose of the Confrontation Clause was "to bring the accuser and accused face to face and require the accuser to deliver the accusation in court."

But the 911 call was "not just a call," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg objected. It was also "a cry for help." Was it not a "practical reality," she asked Mr. Fisher, "that many women in this situation are scared to death?" She added, "Your neat legal categories don't conform to real lives."

Mr. Fisher responded carefully. "I don't mean to be insensitive," he said. He offered a solution: under a rule known as the "forfeiture doctrine," he observed, a defendant who intimidated a witness lost the right to object to the use of that witness's out-of-court statements.

Justice Antonin Scalia interjected: "Maybe we should just suspend the Confrontation Clause in spousal abuse cases."

The other justices undoubtedly took his point, a reminder that he was the author of the Crawford decision, and that he had persuaded six of his colleagues in that case, including Justice Ginsburg, that the Confrontation Clause should be interpreted literally.

Interpreted literally! What a textualist! Are we to be literal about the interpretation in that interesting, sensitive decision, or are we to consider the realities of spousal abuse? What a puzzler!

UPDATE: Have you noticed how indecisive Barry Manilow is when he talks to the contestants on American Idol?

I am back and I am blogging!

2006-03-20T15:11:00.000-08:00

I have returned after my hiatus! As all of my loyal readers know, I am moving into a new condo in the middle of Madison. Here is another shot of the view out my window. It is very cold in Madison in the winter, but of course you can always find something to eat, if you are very resourceful.

I have not been on vacation. Here is what happened. I am getting my new condo painted, and I decided that it would be very exciting to liveblog the process of watching the paint dry. What a hoot! That is the sort of original thrill only Altmouse provides.

So as soon as the painters left, I brought in a pillow, my laptop, a pot of coffee, and a big bag of Marshmallow Peeps, and I started blogging away! But I made a mistake. I brought in a humidifier because I have sinus trouble. How was I to know that blowing a humidifier does not help paint to dry? The humidifier manufacturer is very partisan, so they did not put a warning of this sort on their machine. How shocking. To make a long story short, three days ago I woke up in the hospital with an acute case of Marshmallow Peeps poisoning. I understand that there will be a medical journal article written about my condition! Of course I would prefer that someone would write a blog post about it. It would seem more appropriate.

UPDATE: I cannot get the final episode of Project Runway out of my head! How exciting it all was! And did you know tnat the musical Oklahoma takes place in... Oklahoma? I find that very fitting. It is also about sexuality. How surprising! Who knew that musicals were ever willing to take on such subjects, especially 40 years ago, well before sexuality was invented?

UPDATE: I see that Scott Lemieux calls The New Republic "vacuous." Ha! He is the one who is "vacuous." If there is one thing that gets my goat, it is people who write empty-headed, meandering fluff about trivial issues and yet have the audacity to call other people names like "vacuous." Lemieux needs to engage in a process of sincere self-reflection.

Moving and I am very tired.

2006-03-08T20:45:00.000-08:00

I am so very tired. I am selling my house and moving to a condominium. This is the view from my new window. It is a bit nicer in summer, I hope. But I am very close to downtown.

I am very excited about the finale of Project Runway. Do you know what would be great? If the show were scripted by Chief Justice Roberts! That would be so wonderful! He writes very crisply. Reading his opinions is like eating fresh iceberg lettuce, because his opinions are just that crisp. But to get his opinions you don't have to go up to a salad bar and use those awful tongs they have there. I hate those! Sometimes I lean down because I have dropped a grape tomato or something, and I bang my head on the sneeze guard. Anyway, Justice Roberts would know what to do about judging between Daniel and Chloe. Chloe could perhaps make some clothes for his Chief Justiceness' kids! I think she designs terrific pockets and so she could probably do a good job with Peter Pan collars.

Today someone came to look at my house. I'm pretty sure they were sent there by the real estate company. Anyway, I forgot they were coming, and so I had not shoveled the walk. At the last minute I had to go outside in only a towel, because I just got out of the shower. Brrrrr! It felt very nice after a few minutes, though. Have you ever noticed that snow can be very snowy? I have.

Maybe my ancestors were polar bears! Or they were from Scotland. Polar bears would probably like to take a trip to Scotland. I would.

Liveblogging last night's Oscars.

2006-03-06T19:32:00.000-08:00

Last night I liveblogged the Oscars by putting them on TiVo so I can blog about them today. Watching the Oscars on TiVo is the only way to do it! That way I can skip past all the boring speeches, songs, musical numbers, presentations, monologues, "comedy bits," film montages, commercials, and everything else. That material is too boring! I only watch to see the fashions. It is too bad though that none of the starlets, like Hillary Gyllenhall or Heath Swank, wore anything nearly as glamorous as the Mrs. Sam Alito evening gown.

7 (Central Time). Jon Stewart is off to a fast start, because I am hitting the fast forward on the remote. I stop because there is a scene with Billy Crystal and Chris Rock in a tent. I did not know that they liked camping. I hope they have warm pajamas. I think I see panic on Jon Stewart's face. Or maybe that is some butter I got on the TV screen. Hold on... it was butter. David Ogden Altmouse Steirs sometimes thinks that the TV set is an English muffin. He is such a scamp!

7:10. A very funny montage about camping. I haven't seen more than 15 minutes of any of the movies they are discussing, but I am pretty sure that most of them were about camping. The environmentalist bias is clear. But Jon Stewart is subtly mocking the partisan audience. Only I get the joke. I am a nonpartisan, That is why I usually get knock-knock jokes, also. Moreover, I also am alone in my grasp of the subtle mockery of liberal partisans that is the true hallmark of the Daily Show.

7:45. George Clooney wins Best Supporting Actor. He says blah blah blah, I am better than you, and actors are better than you, do you want a piece of this motherfucker, I want to rape your puppies, Ace is the place for the helpful hardware man, I am a partisan, I like to eat biscuits n' gravy. I am paraphrasing but that is really what he meant. Thank goodness for TiVo! That made it easy for me not to actually listen to such partisan ranting.

7:45. Tom Hanks wastes our time by not blogging but talking. Ben Stiller is wearing a bow tie and a duck with no pants. I eat some cookies. "King Kong" wins, which is a movie about a giant gorilla. The gorilla does not come out -- because there was no gorilla. It was all fake. "Wallace and Grommit" win an award for something, but they for some reason do not accept the award in person. That is the first real political statement of the night. Maybe they are off camping.

8:20. Jennifer Aniston comes out to make fun of us and to call us names. Will Ferrell and Steve Carell tell funny jokes. "Return of the Sith" doesn't win! Partisanship! I like light sabers. They are very nonpartisan. Rachel Weisz has large, voluptuous, swelling breasts. I lose track of what she is saying.

9:00. All the women are in beige or black. Did some nonpartisan order go out? I hope so. Last year some women word different colors in an obvious attempt to sway the election. That was very wrong. Black and tan are nice colors with no partisan connotations, however.

9:45. Salma Hayek is wearing blue! I hope she gets hit by a bus. The conductor is eating M&Ms, while I am drinking red wine. But that is not because I am a partisan! Ha ha ha. Wine is very good and goes well with all sorts of food, like sandwiches. I am fast forwarding again.

10:00. A big yawn. "It's Mighty Hard Out Here for a Pimp." The room is jubilant, because Hollywood is objectively pro-pimp. America is not impressed. America hates it when its values are stomped on by Hollywood. Americans do not like pimps, and are in face extremely anti-pimp. Why can't other people agree that Hollywood is out of step with traditional American values? Why am I the only one who ever makes this point? I am a very original thinker. Anyway, nobody will be talking about this "Pimp" song tomorrow. That much is very clear.

11:00. And the winner is CRASH! This is an excellent choice. There is a strong chance that I even saw this one, but I will have to check my blog to be sure.

Why "Crash"? It is a surprise, but it makes sense. Giving an award to a homosexual movie would have been too partisan. People disagree about gays. Everybody now obviously agrees about race. But what about camping? What happened to the camping movie? Why did they risk alienating all of those people who like camping? Very strange.

UPDATE. Apparently this character is trying to increase his hit count by talking about how I liveblogged the Oscars. How sad! He apparently is convinced that I am a conservative. But he does not know that I watch the Colbert Report. Ha! So I get the last laugh. And all of his commenters are extremely sexist, because they made fun of me. How shocking. This is exactly why I might someday regret my vote for Russ Feingold. But this character was ideating about me all night! Clearly he was driven to near madness by my feminine allure. How tragic. I am sure he is now regretting his foolishness, as he has had a chance to go back over my commentary and see how incicive and nonpartisan it is. He needs to stop being someone who ideates. That is clear.

Inspirational nostrils of dead celebrities.

2006-02-26T18:03:00.000-08:00

Everyone loved Don Knotts, except the most vicious partisans. Good night, sweet Fife, and may flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. His antics make me weep with helpless laughter even now.

The secret to Knotts's success was of course his nostrils. This is entirely proper. All the best dead celebrities had wonderful, flaring, majestic nostrils. Here let me present a parade of nostrils of dead celebrities. This is the first Altmouse dead nostril parade! What a hoot!

Look at how the nostrils distend! That is comedy. But also, strangely... wisdom.

And then we must contemplate the mighty face caverns of Darren McGavin. How they glisten!

But of course the sublimest dead nostrils of all are those which adorned the front of William Rehnquist's lawerly skull.

These nostrils are fascinating. The eyes may be the windows to the soul, but the nostrils are the doorways of the brain. Look at Rehnquist's mighty visage. Could one but extend one's middle finger -- reverently, of course, humbly! -- can one even imagine the wealth of legal genius and history one could but briefly touch? Of course you would have to push in pretty far. I would recommend applying plenty of petroleum jelly first.

It would be a wonderful and rare treat to so pick the brains of our dead legends.

Denmark, heroin, religion, menstruation, the Olympics.

2006-02-24T18:52:00.000-08:00

I disagree with the violent protests against the cartoons published in the Danish newspaper. The Muslim world looks very partisan. Why can't they see that? They should not be so partisan. Instead, they should be nonpartisan. I don't know why incisive commentary like this has not as of yet solved the problems that seem to plague Islam. That is just sad.

H. L. Mencken was very crusty. Oooh. Crusty Mencken! His nostrils are fascinating. Give them a good hard look. I did!

Does anyone else think this lump on my toe looks infected?

Let's talk about the outfits of the Olympic figure skaters! I was away from the Internet all day at a conference hosted by the entirely nonpartisan Federalist Society. All I could think of while I was there was the figure skater costumes. What kind of figure skating outfit would Antonin Scalia wear? Scalia will lead us into the future. And when he does, he should be wearing an oufit like this:

UPDATE: What's the deal with this guy? HE linked to ME. How shockingly partisan. I'm tired of these nobodies trying to boost their hit counts by linking to me.

Law review articles are not nearly bloggy enough.

2006-02-22T18:50:00.000-08:00

David Ogden Altmouse Steirs drew this cartoon of me at the last Wisconsin Oktoberfest. It is a good likeness, except for some obvious differences! Can you spot them?

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal finally catches up with Altmouse! Ten years ago I wrote a law review article about how law review articles weren't very good and that nobody read them. Of course, nobody read my article. They were too partisan back then!

I do not like law review articles. They are incredibly self-indulgent. The lawprofs who write them like to ride their own strange hobbyhorses. They are obsessed with trivia. The writing wanders off on inexplicable tangents and the authors never seem to engage with serious legal issues. It is almost as if law review articles are a giant vanity press!

The cure? Blogging.

Obviously.

UPDATE: Why do skaters like Sasha Baron Cohen wear these silly outfits?

With those flesh colored tights, it is like we are seeing her sanitary napkin over her crotch! This is disgusting. I did not always think so. However, a skating expedition with David Ogden Altmouse Steirs when he was small, and when I was having my "woman time," convinced me otherwise. Only partisans refuse to learn from their mistakes.

To this day, though, he dislikes Smucker's Preserves. How fascinating.

"Right now everyone is offering me certain things, but I know the show I want to do."

2006-02-20T16:38:00.000-08:00

It seems that Richard Simmons is going move to the TV screen:

Fitness guru Richard Simmons, who has been offering guidance to the out-of-shape masses on his Sirius Satellite radio program of late, reveals, "Now we're going to turn it into a television show. Right now everyone is offering me certain things, but I know the show I want to do."

I have always been a big Richard Simmons fan. But I do wonder if now is quite the time for him to be leaving KISS. They have had several very interesting tours lately.

UPDATE: I am moving soon. Does anybody have any interest in buying our 1600-pound ball of used Band-Aids? David Ogden Altmouse Steirs and I have been building it since he was very small. I am sentimentally attached to it, but it will not fit into the new condo.

Here is a picture of the view from my new window. Those sorts of explosions happen all the time out in the old pasture. Very odd.

And here is a picture of the local cafe, with some of the "regulars." That fellow there works for NASA!

Getting back to business.

2006-02-19T12:40:00.000-08:00

I have not posted in a while because I have had a very partisan ear infection, and also because I have been buried in grading bluebook exams from 1998. The students are not doing very well and I am giving lower grades than usual. But I have no choice, as in many cases their answers are completely out of date.

This is an interesting way to spend your time if you are ill. I like to pretend I am a little Sam Alito ship on the bottom and that I am cleverly dodging the evil questions of the alien Judiciary Committee. Whee! Phreeow! Boom! What a hoot.

The squirrel-y nuts of Kos.

2006-02-13T18:08:00.000-08:00

Armanio over at Daily Kos is making vicious fun of beautiful nonpartisans like myself in a very clumsy way, calling us the "theoretically not stupid folks [who are] wondering what hit them in the Left Blogosophere." I wondered for minute what a "blogosophere" was for about fifteen minutes until I realized I had dribbled Diet Coke on my sweater and a fly was stuck in my left nostril. What a "buzz"! But what sort of a word is "blogosophere" anyway? When I grow up I want to be a "blogosophile" and live in "Blogosophopolis" and eat "blogospholopochips" with "sour cream and onion blogosopholopidip." Ha ha! What a hoot....

Do you ever wonder why squirrels are talking about you behind your back? I do. That is why I always hide my acorn collection in my cheeks when I walk across campus.

Sigh...

UPDATE: Oh yes, Ariosto from Daily Kos. He wonders why I believe that Democrats need to follow the sound advice of the nonpartisan site Red State and stop being mad at the very moderate decisions of the Bush administration. As if that is such an absurd proposition.

All he can do is sneer and explain why he is mad at Bush. Oh yeah? Oh YEAH? Yeah? Yeah? Yeah. Well you answer this. I represent every vote you need to win. Not only do I have my own vote; I also have the command of an army of renegade but extremely nonpartisan squirrels who will push whatever lever I command because I am the Mistress of Acorns. Does Arbusto from Daily Kos not know that a moderate nonpartisan like myself is essential to any election because of our command of the acorn vote? How does he mean to persuade us with the tone of bitter nuttiness that pervades every post that he makes? Does he not fear my use of italics?

I watch the Colbert Report every night, and only the squirrels and I really understand the joke! Why is this not convincing proof of my nonpartisanship? The fools! THE FOOLS! Why can they not see how very necessary I am?

Arguendo simply cannot comprehend the threat posed by my acorn-frenzied squirrel army. It is a mystery why so many people on the Left are so blinded by partisanship that they cannot appeal to the reasonable center, as so perfectly represented by myself.

UPDATE: I'd thought a link from Kos would increase traffic stats. It hasn't. This has caused me to lose interest in the entire disagreement with Orlando. How was I to know he wasn't Kos just because his name was different and he didn't link from the Kos main page? The conclusion is inescapable: Kos is avoiding me, just as does Atrios, who never links here. Cowards! I will argue with Monsanto again when he kills Kos and seizes control of the blog. And NO he may not rent out my squirrel commandos for this purpose. They are nonpartisan, after all.

UPDATE: I am unsure of whether or not to disagree with this guy because I do not know how many hits he gets. All I know is that his life must be very boring because he has nothing better to do after watching the first third of a movie except watch the rest of it. How dull! His imagination must be very stunted, probably because he was abused as a child, perhaps because of an acute bowel disease. That is I suppose what would make him never miss a chance to insult someone like me, someone who has never insulted him and is totally neutral when it comes to politics.

UPDATE: Did I mention I always watch The Colbert Report? I'll also laugh if you make an obscene gesture at Dick Cheney, because I am hip and "with it." But it will not win my vote because I value civil discourse. That is clear.

Kos and Atrios are clouds like dark Heffalumps.

2006-02-10T19:59:00.000-08:00

I was shocked to learn that the very nonpartisan site Red State has been tricked into citing the words of someone who has been making fun of this blog for a while now. This person is a pathetic nonentity who would never make it in law school. But look at how ludicrous the parody is:

"In the year that I've been blogging I've taken a lot of different positions, some left and some right. What I've noticed, over and over, is that the bloggers on the right link to you when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce you with short posts saying you're evil/stupid/crazy, and don't even seem to notice all the times you've written posts that take their side. . .

I'm just saying that I'm struck by the way the right perceives me as a potential ally and uses positive reinforcement and the left doesn't see me as anything but an opponent - doesn't even try to engage me with reasoned argument. Maybe the left feels beleaguered these days, but how do they expect to make any progress if they don't see the ways they can include the people in the middle?"

My nonpartisanship is here the "target" of alleged "satire."

When would I ever write a post taking the side of the partisan Left? They are too partisan! The Left should stop attacking me because if they were not so rabidly partisan, they would admit that I am always right.

But it is a good question: how does the Left hope to win any elections without my completely passive, nonpartisan help? It is my job to sit like a placid, perfect, white-fluffy cloud over the blogosphere. Will I be wafted by the gentle zephyrs of the Right? Or will I be buffeted by the tempestuous, sullen thunderheads of the angry Kos Left? Where, O! where, will I drop the gentle, nourishing rain that is my vote?

Or... maybe I am just disguising myself as a raincloud in order to get some honey. You will never know! I am very clever that way.

UPDATE: It is true though that the Right uses "positive reinforcement." Glenn often sends me the most delicious little bone-shaped biscuits! And honey. I like to eat honey with my lawprof paws. Once, of course, I ate too much and got stuck in his blog, but that is another story.

No lack of Brokeback jokes because the movie is very gay.

2006-02-07T14:35:00.000-08:00

Here is an amusing article about all of the jokes that people are telling about Brokeback Mountain, a movie about cowboys in Wyoming who are gay and have gay sex with their gay partners in a very gay way.

Is some of the joking offensive? Maybe. But I would sternly warn gays not to make a big partisan stink about the "Brokebutt" jokes. That would be very dorky and not cool or hip, because right now the Muslim world is incensed by cartoons that appeared in a Danish newspaper. The connection between the two phenomena is crystal clear. Nobody wants to see gay Wyoming cowboys burning down the Danish embassy in Cheyanne! What dorkitude and geekiness that would be! So "uncool."

To sum up, gays should not be upset by gay jokes. That would be so totally.... gay.

UPDATE: By popular demand, here is another picture from David Ogden Altmouse Steirs. He says it is he and his mommy visiting Brokeback Mountain for Valentine's Day! What a sweetheart!

The ridiculous ridicule of the ridiculous.

2006-02-05T21:22:00.000-08:00

The Muslims reacting in outrage to the Danish cartoons are being ridiculous! If they fear ridicule, they are not making the ridicule ridiculous, and ridicule should always be made ridiculous, or else the ridicule is itself ridiculous. That is clear.

UPDATE! Look at this lovely picture David Ogden Altmouse Steirs drew for me! That is a keeper for the refrigerator for sure. Your grown-up children will appreciate the games they can play at Noggin too!

UPDATE: David Ogden Altmouse Steirs tells me that the object on the right is from a dream he keeps having where I attack him with hedge-clippers and his teeth fall out. How strange.

Liberal partisans and their non-arguments.

2006-02-02T14:45:00.000-08:00

This blog has been innundated with several new classes of readers lately. This always seems to happen when the reprehensible, vicious partisan Atrios links to Altmouse in a desparate attempt to pump up his artificially inflated hit count. According to SiteMeter, Atrios only gets 10 hits a day from a single user in the Phillipines. I have far more readers then he does!

I run an open forum where all comments are welcome, even critical ones, though these will be deleted. However, I am sick and tired of the non-arguments of posters such as the egregious Nim and his "side-kick" Phila, to whom I refuse to link because they are reprehensible, vicious partisans and I refuse to link to sites like that, ever.

Some of these people should learn what a non-argument is. Of course, it is difficult to explain this difficult concept in a brief blog post or even a law review article. I read many law review articles in Starbucks while I grade last semester's blue books. However, by merely shifting a vowel, it is possible to quickly illustrate the concept of a "nun-argument."

No more need be said. The "arguments" of partisans like Phila and Nim are "lighter than air" and very weak because they emanate from their "habit" of partisan thinking. You can't have a conversation with them!

I hope this settles the issue.

UPDATE: Is it possible I am misunderstanding how SiteMeter works? Somehow, I doubt it.

Colbert and the difference between smugness and comedy.

2006-01-30T22:36:00.000-08:00

I love the Colbert Report! I can't say why. I am however absolutely certain that I "get the joke" in a way that its non-self-reflective, partisan fans do not.

Colbert is "playing a character," a supposedly non-partisan, independent-minded, hard-hitting pundit gasbag who without a trace of self-consciousness spouts the most inane GOP talking points as if they were nuggets of hard-won personal wisdom achieved through genuine intellectual struggle. He pompously delivers preposterous, shallow, ill-informed judgements about popular culture, and pretends that he has made some sort of deep and penetrating analysis when all he has done is pose inane questions and made himself look foolish. The "Colbert character" is smugly dismissive of anyone who disagrees, especially when they present "facts," which he holds in round contempt when the argument does not go his way. He is mean-spirited, arrogant, preening, and not half as bright as he thinks, and apparently totally unaware of how thoroughly shot through with hidebound ideology his allegedly "no-spin" persona really is.

What a hoot! The obvious target of "Steve" Colbert's satire?

Liberals.

Why can't they see themselves in the mirror?

(Note: I can call him "Steve" because I am so deeply in tune with the true meaning of the show, unlike his silly, deluded studio audiences.)

UPDATE: Once more we see how the ideologues of the Left and Right are saying the same things! They are so partisan and vicious. This comes from Kos:

i'm pissed. ...everyone of those dems who voted for cloture should be brought down

And then this from the Free Republic, about the American journalist Jill Carroll currently held hostage in Iraq:

My daughter would have more brains than this women shows....isn't it funny how a pro terrorist journalist can get herself into this trouble..with the very animals she has supported - then we are supposed to feel sorry for her because "what if it was my daughter" well it's not...why should I have any sympathy for a person who gives aid and comfort to the very people who have sworn to kill everyone or enslave I love

Only the most demented partisan could fail to see the exact moral equivalence here.

That is why I am a non-partisan. It could not be more clear that I am on the side of the angels.

Jonah likes to wear skirts.

2006-01-27T17:36:00.000-08:00

This is exciting! Jonah Goldberg is coming to the Midwest for an interesting and thoroughly nonpartisan speaking tour. What fun. I hope he wears his skirt.

Note: I am still mad at the assistant vice principal in Junior High School who did not want me to wear short skirts. That was so partisan! I kept wearing them as a matter of principle. But it is certainly fair and indeed a moral obligation to make fun of this young man. The cases are completely different. I do not like Metallica, even though they may indeed be nonpartisan.

UPDATE: John Kerry should wear a skirt! He is very silly for being in Switzerland while calling for a filibuster. If he were serious about the filibuster, he would not have had this trip on his agenda months ago but would have scheduled it with more honest self-reflection.

John Kerry wants the Supreme Court to be "political." That is absurd! If the membership of the Supreme Court were supposed to be "political," then the objectivity of the judges and their totally impartial qualifications would not be so crucial when the president selects them. And, obviously, these nonpartisan qualities are what primarily recommends them. The Supreme Court is no place for politics! Only an utterly objective adherence to the law matters.

UPDATE: If the Democrats want to pick the members of the Supreme Court, they should win in the political arena. Only a political victory enables you to choose who will be on the highest court in the land. Bush won politically, and his politics can guide his choice of Justices, and it is silly to object. The partisan Democrats do not understand politics. And nonpartisanship.

UPDATE: Does anyone have an Advil?

Pajamas media is run by waffles.

2006-01-24T19:28:00.000-08:00

Many people have asked why I did not join Pajamas Media. The reason is clear. They are extremely partisan.

And they didn't ask. Because of their partisanship.

UPDATE: Why do waffle irons make squares? Could someone design a waffle iron that would make waffles with a triangle pattern? Why do partisans stymie new technology?

The great because non-partisan white North?

2006-01-24T11:40:00.000-08:00

Like most other Americans I do not know very much at all about Canada, except that I do not like it. Canada is such a partisan country! They are always sneering at us by being "different" and not "the same" and acting "independent." However, now that they have elected a powerful Conservative government, they have taken a giant step towards being non-partisan. They will not be so arrogant and superior! Those are attitudes I myself cannot stand. I am glad that Canada has finally undergone a process of sincere self-reflection.

UPDATE: I never, ever read partisan blogs. They are too partisan. However, this goes too far. Is there no end to the hatred and the filth spewed by liberal partisans?

Is this supposed to be "ironic"? It is not ironic! It is anti-ironic.

Aside from the sexual crudity, the "Attaturk" woman uses a handle which is offensive to Turks. But it also invokes one of history's greatest monsters, the notorious Islamicist "Attaturk." When we are engaged in a fight to the death against unhinged religious fanatics, to take the name of one famous Muslim anti-secularist is appalling. And this "Watertiger" man... I am a long-time animal rights activist and feminist, and I see this reference to deliberately drowning kittens as a purposeful slur against women of my generation.

If anyone would like to know why I will never vote for a Democrat, this is exactly why.

UPDATE: Some commenters have asked exactly what I am so upset about. It is this description of me:

law professor and conservative -- Attaturk

I have explained numerous times that I am not a conservative. I am a NON-PARTISAN. I am sorry for shouting, but some people "do not get it." Long-time readers will know that I am above partisan politics, blissfully so. That is why unlike the two uneducated, ignorant, vicious, cowardly savages who run this "After Dark" site, I am never reduced to crude insults, but always maintain a tone of serene serenity.

Law review articles: make them bloggier.

2006-01-22T17:33:00.000-08:00

Law review articles are notoriously bad. They are self-indulgent and pompous. Authors usually go on and on about their private obsessions, and do not ever seem to acknowledge other points of view. They can be so silly!

The problem is not caused by the student editors. No, it is caused by pretentious lawprofs who refuse to engage with pertinent legal issues and instead go on and on about trivialities. And they are so sneering and condescending to their critics! They absolutley will not do what they most need to do, and that is explain complex legal issues in clear, down-to-earth language.

Law review articles should be more like blogs. None of these defects appear in blog writing! Look at my site, for instance. Would that all lawprof law review writers could be as honestly self-reflective as this blog.

UPDATE: Here is a funny picture of the American Idol judges! Simon has tape over his mouth. That is good, because he is as mean as Ted Kennedy. I love this picture. What a hoot!

UPDATE: I wish some of the more obnoxious commenters would stop posting nonsense about how I will not discuss the FICA statute. I have explained several times that it is very complex. Only partisans are saying that anything might be wrong with the NSA spying program. The Justice Department has persuasively argued that the president could not follow FICA because if he did, the program would have been unconstitutional. That is common practice and very logical. The matter is closed.

I am more than willing to listen to criticism. All of it will, however, be deleted.

UPDATE: I am thinking of doing a 365-minute podcast on the color orange. Why orange? Because yellow is too partisan. That is clear.

America's Top Supreme Court model.

2006-01-19T19:53:00.000-08:00

Sam Alito would look very nice in an outfit like Shandi's from "America's Top Model."

Also, Kelly Clarkson has changed her mind.

"Former "American Idol" winner Kelly Clarkson, subject to a scolding from judge Simon Cowell for not letting her songs be used by new contestants on the show, has agreed to do so, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Roger Widynowski, from Clarkson's Sony BMG record label, said Clarkson's management was negotiating with the show over which songs will be used.

Simon Cowell is mean and partisan, just like Ted Kennedy.

I think television sets should come in different scents. When "American Idol" comes on, I would like my television to smell like apples.

Ryan Seacrest should be on the Supreme Court.

2006-01-18T19:08:00.000-08:00

American Idol is back! Am I blogging it? Of course! What else would I have to do? I am sure I can finish this semester's syllabi and grade last semester's exams by April at the very least. Starbuck's is open late!

I broke down in tears when a cowboy named Garet Johnson, who has never been on an airplane or had any singing lessons, explained how he sings Elton John songs to his turkeys "because there is no people to sing to." He lives in a town where people do not like to hear cowboy turkey love songs. They are so partisan! The most touching moment came when he explained how he once told one of his turkeys, "I don't know how to quit you!" To quit singing Elton John songs to the bird, of course. I wept.

American Idol this season is like the Alito hearings. Samuel Alito is like a cowboy, singing his nonpartisan songs of Elton John to the Democratic "turkeys." But his songs of law need to be sung on the airplane of the highest court in all the land! And no "Senator Simon Kennedy" should stop him. I am weeping as I type this.

Did I mention I was a lawprof? Here is a picture of the Alito Cowboy. He is singing "Crocodile Rock." But he is a turkey and not a crocodile! What a hoot.

UPDATE: As a lawprof, I have to say that I have no sympathy at all for so-called "parody blogs." They are partisan snares! This person is in serious legal hot water. As a lawprof, I think he is in big trouble. And rightly so. What a partisan!

Did you ever wonder if "tungsten" would be a good name for a flavor of ice cream?

Fighting the partisan disease.

2006-01-17T07:36:00.000-08:00

There was some interesting discussion in the comments to this post. My point was the most interesting:

Irony is a partisan disease, like botulism, mononucleosis, or empiricism. It should be stamped out, with a very big stamper.

Liberals like to attack people under the cover of "irony." That is so absurd! It is also extremely sexist. David Ogden Altmouse Stiers agrees:

My mom is right. Irony sucks!

UPDATE: In the comments, David Ogden Altmouse Steirs adds, "Peanut butter and jelly!" That is largely correct. What a big boy!

Blogconlawprof.

2006-01-16T15:43:00.000-08:00

Bloggers who are lawyers and are always blogging about the law are so pretentious. It seems they need to establish their credentials by showing off their "expertise" and "experience" and "research." That obsession strikes me as very lacking in self-knowledge. They must be very insecure. If they were really as accomplished legal thinkers as they pretend, they would talk about interesting things like staples, speed-listening, nostrils, and lint. They would also explain why movies they haven't seen are silly and fake. Another good idea would be for them to start constantly pointing out how their grown-up son thinks his lawprof mommy is the World's Smartest Lawprof and is ever so insightful and clever. Because that isn't creepy or weird at all.

Those pretentious lawbloggers should stop discussing the "law" and instead start endlessly referring to themselves as a "lawprof." They should say things like "lawprofs never listen to other lawprofs about the law" or "lawprofs like to eat baloney sandwiches."

Of course, not all of these lawbloggers are lawprofs. They should merely then find a syllable of their speciality which can be attached to the word "law." As in, "crimlaws think biopics are silly," or "corplaws wonder: do cats in Paris sneeze in French?," or "envirolaws are against their own partisanship." That would be the best thing to do.

My son thinks this is a great idea!

UPDATE: One movie I do like is the original documentary version of "The Manchurian Candidate." It always amazed me, though, how partisans attacked Angela Lansbury's character in that film. Her politics were no good, of course, but her maternal instincts were perfectly admirable. Only partisans would disagree.

"Who Cares What You Think?"

2006-01-14T18:53:00.000-08:00

Did anyone watch the end of the Alito hearings? They were so dorky. The Democrats are such lame-o uncool-heads! What geeks! They lack seriousness and gravity.

Also there were a lot of "lawprofs" at the hearings. You might think a "lawprof" like me would therefore be interested in the proceeedings. But I already know what I think! Thus, I already know what I will think about what will be said that I won't hear. Obviously.

By far the most absurd performance was turned in by Laurence Tribe:

Tribe: I'm not here to oppose his nomination, as I did several months before that time with Robert Bork. And I'm not here to lecture the committee on its responsibilities or its role. I don't think that's my role.

[Criticisms of Alito omitted. They were so partisan! Specific criticisms of things are dorky.]

SPECTER: Professor Tribe, did you say you were not testifying against Judge Alito?

TRIBE: I am not recommending any action. I'm recommending that everyone -- because I think it's foolish. Nobody really cares what I think.

SPECTER: Aside from your recommendation, are you saying you're not testifying against Judge Alito?

TRIBE: I'm not testifying for or against Judge Alito. I'm explaining why I am very troubled by his views. Obviously, it follows from that that I would be hard pressed to recommend his confirmation.

That is so silly!

Can you imagine how ridiculous it is to go before a Senate committee and not give a straight answer to a simple question? Why can't Tribe say clearly what he wants to do about Alito, given what Alito has very clearly totally avoided saying about his nomination? What hypocrisy.

Also, Tribe is clearly taking on the persona of a "humble law professor character." I think that is outrageous. He is speaking as though he is a simple, nonpartisan law professor, but he obviously has an agenda. That is utterly disgusting. I think anyone who would pretend to not have a political agenda by hiding under the "nonpartisan law professor" disguise is simply nauseating.

But what is especially outrageous here is Tribe's utter lack of self-awareness about what he is doing. That is shocking. It must be truly horrible to go through life while laboring under such preposterous delusions.

UPDATE: The number seven partisans are at it again! All seventh comments are disgracefully partisan.

I'm actually finally going...

2006-01-13T20:26:00.000-08:00

To see a movie. I like movies! More later.

UPDATE: I went to Starbucks instead and looked at blue books (I'm catching up on my 2004 grading). I also read a third of a law review article and thought about lint. Lint, lint, lint. Where does it all come from? What does it mean? Is it partisan?

The movie was terrible! It was all fake and pretend. I hate movies where pretentious actors make things up that are not real.

Democrats say they'd "hit it."

2006-01-13T12:10:00.000-08:00

Or that is the message I get from this column by E. J. Dionne:

Democrats seem to be wary of mounting a filibuster. What they should insist upon, to use a euphemism Alito might appreciate, is an extended debate in which his evasions will be made perfectly clear to the public. If moderate senators want to vote for a justice highly likely to move the Supreme Court to the right, they can. But their electorates should know that's exactly what they're doing.

Define "what their electorates should know." Doesn't everybody know that Alito is a well-qualified judge who was nominated by the president? And they also know that he likes baseball.

Saying flat out that he will shift the Court in a hard right direction would be ridiculous. Just because he will severely weaken womens' rights to their own bodies is no reason to say so out loud. That would be crass.

Liberals may be driven by their or their own sense of right and wrong, but they make the grave error of saying so openly.

Conservatives are more mature. Even if they are driven by a genuine dislike of abortion, they realize it is morally correct to pretend that this goal does not exist. Stating such a goal openly would merely open the door to unfair partisan attacks that they are against women's rights simply because they want to take away a particular right now held by women.

And really, when you come right down to it the very worst reason to oppose a Supreme Court nominee is that he will make decisions you find morally reprehensible and harmful to real human beings. That is partisanship of the most shocking sort. It merely injects politics into what should be a totally non-political space, like the United States Senate.

UPDATE: Bowling balls have clearly developed an unhealthy obsession towards me. I will say no more about this.

Sexist bowling balls.

2006-01-12T13:41:00.000-08:00

This is an extremely sexist bowling ball. I find such sexist sporting equipment a terrible insult to women of my generation.

UPDATE: Ouch! While I was deleting posts last night I accidentally deleted my big toe. That smarts!

Liveblogging the Alito hearings, in between naps.

2006-01-11T07:14:00.000-08:00

I will be liveblogging the Alito hearings, but I also have to catch up on some episodes of America's Top Model I missed while I was travelling. Also I am tired and will nap. Be assured though I will be doing all of these things from the perspective of a constitutional law scholar.

This was a snappy comeback Alito gave to some partisan quesions from Senator Feinstein:

FEINSTEIN: And I'm just asking you would you have sustained the law...

ALITO: I don't think that I can give you a definitive answer to the question because that involves a case that's different from the case that came before me.

Talk to the hand, girlfriend! That will teach partisans to ask questions that touch on issues like a woman's right to her body! Women's bodies are very partisan.

Who do you think will win in America's Top Model? April? Jenascia? Heather? I think it will be Yonnana, because she is like Alito -- nonpartisan and possessing too much integrity to answer any questions that anyone actually cares about the answers to. She and Alito also have very nice hair.

UPDATE: I never read partisan blogs. I do not want to waste my time! But this blogger is shockingly partisan. She seems to assume that Alito will overturn Roe! But we do not know that. He will not say so, so how could we know? Every reasonable person agrees with that.

Of course we do not know how a Supreme Court Justice will rule on a particular issue, nor shouldwe. This is why it would be unwise to place a bet on how, say, Antonin Scalia would rule on an issue related to abortion.

This "Hecate" person seems to know a lot about "goth" but very little about the law, or Top Models.

The Alito hearings: "It is as the voice of Angels"

2006-01-10T09:31:00.000-08:00

I saw Alito's opening remarks at his confirmation hearing. They were brilliant and insightful.

It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn’t help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community.

Indeed! He joined the most interesting clubs in college because he was so oppressed there.

His native community clearly had the good sense and he decency not to allow women or black people into it. Or partisans and hippies! He is a second or possibly third generation immigrant misogynist law-monk who does not like people who disagree with the government. How pleasing!

He goes on to make a fascinating comment about what happened when he became a judge:

When I became a judge, I stopped being a practicing attorney. And that was a big change in role.

What a penetrating insight! This is evidence of a keen mind at work. Few people would ever realize that attorneys and judges play different roles. For instance, judges bang hammers (called "gavels") on things in order to make a loud noise. Attorneys do not. The man is a born storyteller! And this "judges and attorneys are different" line is an important theory about the law which will underlie all his testimony. I also anticipate him arguing that baseball is different from sandwiches. Take that, partisans!

Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds based on the next brief that they read, or the next argument that’s made by an attorney who’s appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague during the conference on the case when the judges privately discuss the case.

Good judges, you see, do not have any opinions on anything, nor do they have philosophies or indeed read books or have political affiliations or beliefs. They are like angels of nonpartisanship. Their personal backgrounds and anything they ever said or thought or wrote in the past is irrelevant. Nobody ever asked Gabriel what he thought about the law during his Archangel confirmation hearings. And that is appropriate.

Neither would it be fair of him to say how he would have decided any particular case, about, say, abortion. That might make him say something that everybody knows, but that he cannot admit because that would be actually saying what everyone knows. Such as that he does not like abortion. We must all have the maturity not to ever talk about the question everyone in the country knows is the real issue.

But this is where Alito truly shines:

The judge’s only obligation -- and it’s a solemn obligation -- is to the rule of law. And what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires.

This is not a banal truism at all! All this is quite sound and you would have to be lacking sense to disagree.

Partisans may argue here that if a judge's only purpose is to do what they are told by the law, they could just as easily be replaced by giant law compuers. But such partisans do not understand the simple truth that machines can never do what judges can do. Until someone invents an "angel machine," anyway.

Partisanship is everywhere, including breakfast and snacktime.

2006-01-09T10:33:00.000-08:00

To be a truly honest thinker one can never be a partisan. Partisans are always unfair to me, because they percieve me, falsely, as a partisan of the other side! That is why I do not have conversations with such people. It is not a real conversation!

But partisanship is everywhere. I am often bothered by the partisan behavior of those who prefer non-dairy creamer to milk when they offer me coffee. Observe the clear differences:

Non-dairy creamer is obviously partisan. Just look at it! How can you even have a conversation with non-dairy creamer? It is impossible!

But on the other hand, milk comes from cows. What is more independent and non-partisan than cows? Cows do not involve themselves in the crudities of partisan politics!

Kos is by his own admission an "asshole." But have you ever heard anyone call a cow an "asshole"? Cows also support the American dairy industry as well as the American meat industry. And cows would clearly want Sam Alito confirmed to the Supreme Court, because they see that he is very competent. This is all very clear.

I find it a very valuable use of my time to decide what things are partisan and what things are independent. Toenail clippers are very partisan. Ironically, toenails themselves are not. Toast is extremely partisan! Toast with jelly however is objective and interesting. I could talk with a piece of toast with jelly for hours, and often have. I asked my wheat toast with strawberry jam this morning what Alito should say if he is asked about the "Star Trek" episode "Mirror Mirror." What a hoot!

What sorts of things do you think are partisan? Is grass partisan? Ping-pong balls? "Dora the Explorer"? Philips-head screwdrivers? Martinis? Salad dressing?

You are the real hypocrite, and no backsies.

2006-01-07T23:39:00.000-08:00

I am a hypocrite...

But you are the real hypocrite...

But I am rubber, and you are glue -- and the charge of hypocrisy does not stick to me! It sticks to you!

The subject: the absurd demand of partisans that I explain what I mean when I say something, and the bizarre insistence that I must "explain" how what I say in one instance is coherent with other things I say in other instances. That is absurd!

As far as the Plame situation goes, I have NEVER offered an opinion about it at all. Why? Because it is complicated. It involves legal questions. And I know so very much about the law that I know that I do not understand it in this case. That is why I blog: to not explain issues in my particular professional field, a field in which I am not especially interested. Why is this so surprising?

I do not understand the issues involved in the Plame leak or the domestic surveillance issue, as I have repeatedly stated. All I know is that the Plame case is difficult, but that the leak there is not important. Likewise, the spying revelations are a mystery to me, but it is clear that that the leaker in this case is a traitor who should be shot for compromising national security in a way which is impossible to actually describe intelligibly, but which is nevertheless very real. American jurisprudence is very advanced. That is why it is so hard to explain.

But it is the leaker of the domestic spying program information who must be judged the most harshly. How is it this person's prerogative to determine the morality or legality of what she or he was asked to do? That is outrageous! In our system of democracy, we do not want individuals who believe that they have been ordered to do something illegal to speak out.

What could be more un-American than for a person in the government who believes that she or he has been told to violate the law to say so to a member of the press? That is just sick! If the president has made a judgement about what is legal and what is right, who is some "government employee" to contradict him? Who does this government worker serve, anyway, the president or the "nation"?

If we have reached a point in which individual members of the government are so debased as to risk their careers and lives simply because they think the Constitution is being violated, I must weep for America. Blithe yammering about how it didn't really hurt just makes them look all the more partisan.

Setting that old Oscar tone.

2006-01-06T19:47:00.000-08:00

It is very, very interesting that Jon Stewart has been chosen as the next host of the Oscars:

Oscar's desperate search for relevancy continues. With the choice of Comedy Central's Jon Stewart as the next Oscar host, the film academy has apparently opted for the host most like the films that presumably will be nominated for the award itself — small, literate, political-ish, gems like "Brokeback Mountain," "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Capote."

But those "small, literate, political-ish, gems like 'Brokeback Mountain,' 'Good Night, and Good Luck' and 'Capote'" do want to be taken seriously at a serious event like the Oscars, even though they are pompous. That is because the Oscars are supposed to be serious even though they are not serious and also pompous, although yet not pompous nor serious. Perhaps the small and literate politcal-ish Jon Stewart can span the serious gap and be funny but not pompous, and serious at the same time.

That is clear.

UPDATE: This post has already attracted some unfair and bitter comments. Here is my reply:

it is quite presumptuous of you to be critical of this post, as if you understood it. Reading it over, even I don't understand it! It is immature to harshly judge something you don't understand. Given that my post is incomprehensible, I am afraid that you are now shown in a very bad light indeed. You are very judgemental.

You need to engage in a process of sincere self-reflection in order to grasp why you are so childishly dismissive of what neither you nor anyone else can possibly appreciate, simply because it is not very coherent.

Let that be an end to it.

Alito and the Supreme Court.

2006-01-05T22:34:00.000-08:00

It is very important news that the ABA has declared that Samuel Alito is competent.

Why? Because now there is no reason on earth for pompous, pretentious senators to ask him any questions whatsoever during his confirmation hearings. The President of the United States nominated him. As the Constitution states, once a president makes a nomination, senators need to agree with him. That is well known.

The ONLY issue is "competence." Ideology and the real-world results of the judge's likely decisions are out-of-bounds, and only ignorant partisans would claim otherwise.

After all, the real issue is not whether this judge is likely to make decisions that will significantly limit the rights of American citizens to their bodies, or whether this judge will dangerously concentrate power in the Executive branch to the detriment of the Constitution and traditional American democracy.

No. The only issue is whether or not he will restrict individual rights competently.

Why can't Democratic partisans understand this simple truth?

That partisan post office.

2006-01-05T17:33:00.001-08:00

I tried to buy stamps this morning. But they were very partisan! Why does the government put pictures of things on stamps? Why are they not exactly square? And why are stamps so sticky? And why do post office employees object to such interesting questions when they are asked politely, if insistently? There is certainly a troubling lack of civility in our nation today, which I find alarming.

Answering questions from partisans.

2006-01-04T17:00:00.000-08:00

In a desperate attempt to puff up his traffic, Atrios has once more unleashed his savage commenters. This time this blog is the target. Why does Atrios not distance himself from his despicable "community"? I am not an eighth of the way through the comments and already I am appalled by the sexist crap:

Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to sycophancy.

Save us, Altmouse!

Indeed. And surprised with the blogger quoted that Plamegate isn't being mentioned more in this context.

(.)(.)

That last comes from a commenter named "Woot." "Woot" is an inherently sexist term. How shocking. But it is the raw and unpleasant sexism of the third commenter that I find most outrageous. I suppose Atrios will call this kind of joking "ironic." The Democratic party has a long, long way to go to convince me they are in favor of women, led as they are by such anti-female figures as Atrios and Hillary Clinton.

But it is this comment from Atrios that is the most frightening:

Magic 8 ball sez on prospect of Althouse providing a satisfactory answer to Ted's question: all signs point to no.

"Magic 8 Ball"? I cannot tell if that refers to how much Atrios hates women or how much he hates America.

I believe that my analysis of this issue should answer "Ted's" question to the satisfaction of everyone, except partisans.

UPDATE: Atrios's "real" name is supposedly "Duncan Black." I find it appalling that a prominent liberal blogger has adopted such a racist surname.

I feel very itchy.

2006-01-04T09:50:00.000-08:00

Do you ever feel itchy? Sometimes I am itchy. When that happens, I like to scratch the itch. Sometimes I use my fingernails, or sometimes even a hairbrush. I never bought one of those fancy backscratchers, though. Those are so absurd!

UPDATE: It occurs to me that itchiness can sometimes be caused by dry skin. In this case, I recommend moisturizer.

Movies of the year.

2006-01-03T16:12:00.000-08:00

I have not seen any movies this year. They are all terrible!

The thing I do not like about movies is that they are filled with pretentious actors. These actors are never real -- they are always pretending! Lots of people consider "Patton" a great movie, for example. And, I admit, for years I loved it. I thought it was a very stirring film about how it is good when America fights in wars. But then I found out through research that George Patton was not in the movie at all! Instead, it was all phony. "Patton" was really a man named John S. Scott pretending to be the legendary general! I wrote an angry letter to the Pentagon demanding that they arrest the Scott imposter for impersonating a military officer. Yet they did nothing. Of course that was during the Clinton administration, which was extremely partisan.

So it may shock you to find out that this year's hit biopic "King Kong" does not feature a real giant killer gorilla at all. Instead, the beast is "faked" using "special effects." Who wants to see pretend giant gorillas? That is absurd!

But there is one movie that came out this year that I can recommend wholeheartedly:

Order it here today. It is a terrific documentary about the lives and loves of young people trying to make a go of it in the music biz. A must see, and extremely nonpartisan.

The law is very complex.

2006-01-02T11:46:00.000-08:00

I was looking at one of those partisan blogs run by a lawyer. This lawyer is so insecure about his knowledge of the law that he sometimes actually discusses legal issues. How silly!

I do not like to use my position as a law professor to make pronouncements about what the law means because the law is very complicated. Why should I make a judgement about whether or not the president violated the FISA statute, for instance? It is much more responsible to allow my commenters to make such judgements, for obvious reasons I think it would be irresponsible to explain. Only partisans want such "explanations" in order to twist them to serve their own partisan agenda.

Clearly, it would be absurd for a law professor on a blog about constitutional law to actually look at the relevant statute. What if the only conclusion that could emerge from such an exercise is that the president has broken the law? That would be a partisan conclusion. And I am above such cheap political point-scoring. I am sure you agree.

My picture!

2005-12-31T17:14:00.000-08:00

I am going to be adding my picture to my blog. This picture was taken by the finest fashion photographer in Wisconsin.

I am a diva!

The best of 2005 Altmouse!

2005-12-31T01:17:00.000-08:00

I decided to put up a list of this year's best Altmouse posts! You can read the best of Altmouse here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and especially here.

Do not complain if one of your most special favorites is not here! I have chosen each of these for personal reasons of my own. Only the very best have been included. Why focus on what I didn't choose?

Rumpberthomscalalitabebopaluladingdongshesmybaby predictions.

2005-12-30T10:53:00.000-08:00

William Safire triumphantly returns to the NYTimes opinion page with his clever "office pool" predictions for 2006. What a hoot!

The last one is interesting:

14. As Bush approval rises, historians will begin to equate his era with that of: (a) Truman; (b) Eisenhower; (c) L.B.J.; (d) Reagan; (e) Clinton.

My guess is that Bush will be seen as incomparable to anyone but himself. Safire is right that his approval ratings will inevitably skyrocket. The amazing Iraqi elections have already given him a tremendous boost. Only partisans would deny Bush his greatness.

But I do have a criticism of Safire, the notorious wordsmith maven. ("Notorious" means "celebrated," right? Upon sincere self-reflection, I am sure that I am right.) He coins the term "Robertscalito" to describe the new Supreme Court. This is not aesthetically pleasing!

I propose the term "Rumpberthomscalalitabebopaluladingdongshesmybaby" instead. That is aesthetically pleasing, and nonpartisan as well! Who does not like "oldies"? Perhaps the same people that do not like Roberts or Alito because of their partisanship. These people need to get over their wombs and civil liberties manias and engage in honest self-reflection about how they present themselves to the nonpartisan American people.

Speed stapling again.

2005-12-29T19:05:00.000-08:00

Many people have questioned whether there is really any usefulness in speed stapling.

This is mere partisan carping. When I was in law school I was often asked to do the stapling. For every group project I had the job of stapler-in-chief. Everyone was surely afraid that I would outshine them if I were allowed to do any of the law-research and law-writing thingies. Learning how to staple rapidly and accurately got me my law degree.

Have you ever noticed that if you keep your eyes open long enough your eyeballs feel itchy?

A warning to partisans: don't be so partisan.

2005-12-29T16:15:00.000-08:00

I have been hearing some criticism that I have not updated quickly enough. The reason for this is that I have been engaged in a process of sincere self-reflection. My conclusion? That those who criticize me are partisans who need to engage in a process of sincere self-reflection.

Similarly, the WaPo reports that

President Bush shifted his rhetoric on Iraq in recent weeks after an intense debate among advisers about how to pull out of his political free fall, with senior adviser Karl Rove urging a campaign-style attack on critics while younger aides pushed for more candor about setbacks in the war, according to Republican strategists.

The result was a hybrid of the two approaches as Bush lashed out at war opponents in Congress, then turned to a humbler assessment of events on the ground in Iraq that included admissions about how some of his expectations had been frustrated. The formula helped Bush regain his political footing as record-low poll numbers began to rebound. Now his team is rethinking its approach to his second term in hopes of salvaging it.

Increased candor about the war is a good idea. The constant stream of good news from Iraq is not being widely reported.

And liberal partisans who criticize the war need to take more note of how successful the war has been. They need to be more candid. Otherwise, they risk being left behind as Bush's approval ratings soar. Take a look at the dramatic gains he has made in the latest Gallup poll!. Compare especially the 12/19-22/05 poll to the 12/5-8/05 numbers.

Clearly, anti-war and anti-Bush partisans are reeling from the onslaught of the nonpartisan Bush truth attack.

Have you heard who is silent lately?

2005-12-26T22:37:00.000-08:00

It is Hillary Clinton. I did a Google search and found that she has not said anything about the silly "wiretapping scandal." I am sure that liberal partisans are shocked that the authoritative Google shows one of their leaders is not blindly following in their own partisan footsteps.

Hillary is being sensible. She is trying to distance herself from the partisan Democrats who are claiming that Bush should not break the law if he wants to. That is ridiculous! If Bush does break any laws, he would do it in a nonpartisan way. It would be wrong and partisan to get upset over that. That's why I stay out of politics -- it tempts you to say absurd things.

UPDATE: Hillary has gone too far! Yes, she still is being tasteful in not yet criticizing a president for the victimless crime of not following a law passed by Congress. But I saw on one of those blogs I never read that she has been so gauche as to question the way the FISA court rubberstamps warrant requests. She is actually not a total fan of the Patriot Act!

The Senate bill, which I supported, not only required the government to meet a higher standard before issuing these orders, it also gave recipients of a FISA order an explicit and meaningful right to challenge these orders and their accompanying gag orders in court. The conference report sadly retains a variation of the current law’s exceptionally lenient standard of review, a standard that effectively turns the courts into little more than a rubber stamp. Further, the conference report does not give the recipient of a FISA order any express right at all to seek meaningful judicial review of its gag order. Quite simply, the conference report places inadequate checks on these orders.

It is interesting that a Google search does not always say everything you want to know about what someone has not said. Do you like Google? I like Google. Maybe one day we can have Google races and see who can do the quickest searches for things like "Mello Yello" and "drywall." That would be fun!

But it is clear that the hyper-partisans at Kos and Atrios will still never criticize Hillary for anything, ever, because she is a Liberal. They are too partisan!

Speed stapling.

2005-12-26T20:36:00.000-08:00

You know what would be exciting? Speed stapling. That would be a competition in which office workers "face off" to see who could staple the most collated reports in a designated time period. Points could be awarded for accuracy as well. Is the staple perfectly horizontal each and every time? I've always liked staples. What is your favorite office supply? Do you like toner? I enjoy toner. There is a lot of it in the supply cabinet in my office. It has a very pleasant aroma. I also think it would be fun to find out how much my hair weighs.

Behind the mask.

2005-12-26T08:07:00.000-08:00

I love masking tape! It's really very interesting. This morning I found this article which is all about how to buy masking tape. What a hoot!

Visions of sugar plum evil partisans.

2005-12-24T18:40:00.000-08:00

One non-argument one sees a lot on the left is to characterize your opponent's criticism as a "whine." That is too boring! I could just say back to you that you are whining about me. What's the point? How do you begin to imagine that you've said something?

I never read the silly stuff they say about me on the internet. Who has time to read those sad little blogs? I am above such things.

But this horrible little foulmouthed creature needs to understand what placid nonpartisanship means. Why does this little nonentity care so much for namecalling?

He may also be a hypocrite. I am sure my loyal readers agree. We all concur here completely about the value of civilized dissent, after all.

"Eveyone" says Kos is an "asshole."

2005-12-23T09:12:00.000-08:00

That is the chief lesson to be drawn from this extensive profile of Kos -- Markos Moulitsas Zuniga -- in the latest Washington Monthly:

Moulitsas is touchy, far too self-assured, and easily provoked. But he's more interesting in person than he is on his blog, more thoughtful and funny and even a little bit more capable of self-criticism. He laughs, he makes fun of himself, he says absurd things and then takes them back, and then thinks again and doesn't—he actually enjoys himself.... "Everybody says I'm an asshole, and they're right, I am."

I am fascinated by learning that Kos is much more interesting live than on his blog. So I suppose that's how he became a top-tier political blogger -- being an asshole. And being an asshole means behaving as if you are absolutely certain at all moments of the absolute rightness of your own snap judgements, being cutting and dismissive when confronted with even the mildest criticism. Being an asshole means being totally unable to correct oneself when shown to be wrong based on obvious evidence.

That's a price I just won't pay.

I am sad that we will never read the more reasonable Kos blog, the funny one, the one where he shows even a glimmer of self-awareness. Doesn't he have any idea how he comes across to people who aren't his sycophants? Doesn't he realize how he is just projecting his own neuroses and egotism onto his enemies? It must be awful to be a person like him, so utterly incapable of self-doubt, of honest self-reflection. I am absolutely positive you all agree with me.

This is why I am rigorously non-partisan. Politics requires an almost savage exclusion of all self-doubt, makes you unable to see yourself. I myself of course rise placidly above partisanship. My judgements about politics are clear-eyed and untainted by ideology. Pure.

Poor Kos. Poor, poor Kos. One day I sincerely hope he can come to the place I have arrived at, free of partisanship, free of petty poitics. One day if he is humble and penitent, he may at last understand why nobody has ever, ever, been tempted to call Ann Altmouse an asshole.

Dive for the diva.

2005-12-22T19:43:00.000-08:00

EEEEEEEEEK!

Omigod! This is so hot! I am nominated for "Blogress Diva"! I just wish the Gay Patriot would fix the typo in my name. But EEEEEEEEEK! Omigod!

I just want to say that I am not a conservative, so I can't quite understand why I should be put up for an award for a "Conservative Blogress Diva." I am non-partisan and independent. It's only small-minded misunderstanding that causes everyone else in the entire world except me to call me a "conservative." So much is obvious.

I am however quite clearly a "Blogress." Squeak! Tee-hee! Omigosh! I am the girliest Constitutional Law Scholar ever! Even more so than John Roberts!

Giggle! I am a DIVA! Worship at my shoes!

Of course, I am also too serious-minded to be remotely impressed by such frivolity, too much of a genuine feminist. That is why I won't gush.

My favorite things.

2005-12-22T16:17:00.000-08:00

Regular readers know that I never read any of those "blogs" which seem to devote all of their time to slandering me in the vilest, most personal terms. Who can be bothered? I just have better things to do.

I have been told that some what's-his-name at his little blog has tried to "tag" me with a "meme." I decline to respond to someone who has attacked me by in a very sexist fashion calling me a tiny sea creature. And it troubles me that none of the alleged "feminists" of the ugly Left have been able to tear themselves away from their Bush-hatred long enough to defend me. These women seem utterly self-absorbed and shrewish. Why aren't they rushing to defend me? How hypocritical of them!

Anyway, the questions asked as a part of this "game" are partisan and vicious, and I refuse to play this absurd "game." Such "games" are nothing more than artifacts of thinly disguised hatred.

UPDATE: I have been asked by a very prominent blogger who will remain nameless (thanks Glenn!) to answer a set of fun questions! That's what the blogosphere is all about -- intellectual exchange with a set of smart peers in a freewheeling, exciting way.

Seven Things To Do Before I Die:

1. Become a prominent, top tier blogger.
2. Consolidate my position as a top-tier blogger.
3. Continue, in a friendly way, to show misguided people why they are wrong.
4. To keep promoting the friendly, open exchange of ideas.
5. To buy lots of shoes!
6. To combat the crass materialism of society.
7. To crush terrorism beneath my feet.

Seven Things I Cannot Do

I don't "get" the question.

Seven Things That Attract Me to...Blogging

1. The inherent democracy and "levelling" of the format -- the way it allows everyone a voice!
2. The chance to display my expertise to better educate the misinformed and the vulgar.
3. The way it allows for access to opinions from all parts of the political spectrum.
4. The way it allows the well-informed to crush the incoherent, angry Left in the pincer-grip of logic.
5. I love how the blogosphere is all about IDEAS!
6. The ad revenue -- pays for my shoes!
7. Oh, David!

Seven Things I Say Most Often

This is another silly one. Regular readers know I never repeat myself. Only partisans repeat themselves, not independent-minded Constitutional Law scholars.

Seven Books That I Love

1. The Odyssey, by Homer
2. The Tempest, Shakespeare
3. Remembrance of Things Lost, Martin Proust
4. The Mighty Mountain, Thomas Mahon
5. Pilgrim's Progress, Paul Bunyan
6. Gulliver's Travels, John O'Swift
7. The Great Big Book of Constitutional Law, Mr. Blackwell

Seven Movies That I Watch Over and Over Again

1. My Dinner With Andre
2. Aguirre the Wrath of God
3. Crumb
4. Grey Gardens
5. 32 Short Films About Glenn Gould
6. Limelight
7. Dr. Strangelove

I love these movies so much, one day I might even watch one of them with the sound on!

Seven People I Want To Join In Too

OK! This is exciting!

1. John Roberts (BFF)!
2. Pope Benedict XVI
3. Glenn Reynolds!
4. Sammy Alito
5. Hayden Christiansen (hottie!)
6. Ron Artest (see how non-partisan I am?)
7. You know who you are! Yoo-hoo!

Gosh, this was fun!

Humanities horrors.

2005-12-21T18:47:00.000-08:00

The blogger and liberal/socialist Penn State professor Michael Berube has posted a very strange little essay. Berube seems to be the prisoner of his childish liberal worldview when he attacks George Bush for protecting our freedom by invoking the authority to wiretap any Amewrican whenever he sees fit. But at the same time, Berube hits the nail on the head when he attacks Protein Wisdom's puerile Jeff Goldstein, who is a tool of the Pajamas Media conspiracy and was once so tasteless as to cold-bloodedly kill fourteen people at a Thanksgiving Day parade with a shotgun loaded with M & M candies.

It is rather a shame Berube is not a civil, non-partisan, independent thinker like myself. Don't you agree?

UPDATE: You can see the Thanksgiving carnage here.

Asking about rhetorical questions.

2005-12-21T14:18:00.000-08:00

This is a fascinating article about rhetorical questions:

The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know.

I personally avoid asking rhetorical questions. When I ask why someone is stupid, I am genuinely curious as to why that person is not as intelligent as I am. This is called "intellectual curiosity." Do you like rhetorical questions? Why are stupid people always so partisan and interested in electoral politics? Why do such people question the War on Terror? What sorts of movies feature rhetorical questions? Yes, it's rhetorical question time at the Altmouse blog!

Robert says the question mark is his favorite bit of punctuation. I think he's right.

Partisans miss the interesting issues.

2005-12-21T09:14:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of huffing and puffing from the usual suspects over the so-called wiretapping "scandal." Much of this is driven by the desire of partisans to further their own agenda. But responsible observers need to ponder the constitutional issues here, which are fascinating. It should be interesting to see how this all unfolds over the course of the next several decades.

Partisans of the angry left need to understand that matters such as this cannot be resolved or even understood quickly. They need to look at Bush's actions and use them as an opportunity for self-reflection. Why are they not supporting Bush? What inadequacies drive them? After all, little that has occurred over the course of the Bush presidency is so simple as it was in the 1990s, when it was quite clear that Bill Clinton was a sexual predator who deserved public humiliation. That was a much more innocent time.

But again, the constitutional subjects involved with the FISA case are highly intriguing and worth elucidating in detail by experts.

Why I am not a Democrat.

2005-12-21T00:02:00.000-08:00

Liberals often pretend to be feminists, but I have yet to see any evidence that they really care about women's issues. If a woman is not "part of the in crowd," they will permit the most horrific attacks on her to go unchallenged. Indeed, they will cheer these attackers on, because they have no bedrock principles. They are mere partisans. And that is why I hate partisan politics.

I think this is a perfect example of what I mean. This post is a vicious attack on me personally, couched in the most abusive, unregenerate sexist terms. Glossodoris cincta? What century are we living in when such hate can be spewed, without fear of consequence? Oh, I suppose they will say they are being "ironic." As if "nudibranches" are ever "ironic."

Nothing better exhibits the raw hatred and unhinged viciousness of the supposedly tolerant "Left." I will not ever vote for a Democratic politician while such hatemongers as this are in full and total control of the Democratic Party.

UPDATE: I will not link to it, because I never read any other blog that mentions me, ever. Why give them free publicity? So I never know what they are saying. However, I saw that a so-called "conservative" blogger has called me a "total skag whore who should be beaten back to the kitchen where she belongs." This is further evidence that both the entire "nudibranch" Left and even sometimes some stray figure on the Right have exactly the same opinions and say exactly the same things. The evidence here is crystal clear. That is why they attack independent minded non-partisans like myself with such venom.

Know your onion.

2005-12-20T23:46:00.000-08:00

Do onions really add flavor to your favorite recipes? Or do they provide health benefits as well? This article suggests that onions can do both.

Onions not only provide flavor; they also provide health-promoting phytochemicals as well as nutrients.

Onions contain quercetin, a flavonoid (one category of antioxidant compounds). Antioxidants are compounds that help delay or slow the oxidative damage to cells and tissue of the body. Studies have indicated that quercetin helps to eliminate free radicals in the body, to inhibit low-density lipoprotein oxidation (an important reaction in the atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease), to protect and regenerate vitamin E (a powerful antioxidant) and to inactivate the harmful effects of chelate metal ions.

On a related note, I do not like partisan politics. But these attacks on George Bush for promoting a policy of torture are unfair.

UPDATE: Isn't Chewbacca rather underrated? Chewbacca was really crucial to the entire Rebel Alliance, when you stop and think about it. But then I don't like it when a director tells me what to think. Don't you agree?

UPDATE: Pajamas Media isn't doing very well, like I predicted.

The movie of the year.

2005-12-20T23:15:00.000-08:00

I haven't seen it, but I hear The Chronicles of Narnia is very good. I have no opinion about talking lions generally, but this talking lion is supposed to represent Jesus, which is interesting. Do you like lions? Do you think lions can represent Jesus, or should the producers have gotten a tiger, or an ocelot, or perhaps a wildebeest? Do you think lions can talk?