"After the Citizens United decision on free speech and political spending, he found a way [in the Obamacare case] 'to save the court's credibility."
The Wall Street Journal editors note "the strange new respect a conservative receives for sustaining liberal priorities."
Showing posts with label Esquire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Esquire. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Esquire's blogger Charles P. Pierce purports to instruct me: "For the record, writers do not write their own headlines."
He writes: "Thanks for the link, but, seriously, I know there are better things to do in Wisconsin than to be this publicly dim."
Typical lefty response, to call your opponent stupid. But:
1. Hello? Pierce? You're writing a blog. Bloggers write their own post titles. You can call yourself a "writer" and call your post title a "headline," but I presume if I'm looking at a real blogger, you write your own post title.
But whether you write it or some unnamed person at Esquire does, you are responsible for it. And the words were not only ignorant; they resonated with anti-Italian material throughout your post. Or would you prefer to call it an "essay"?
2. Your post really was dumb. You insulted Justice Scalia when you did not understand what he was talking about. I pointed that out. You scribble — presumably doing your own writing — about tweaks to the ACA in the wake of criticism of the "Cornhusker kickback," in some desperate attempt to recover some dignity, but you still haven't shown any sign that you understand the purpose of Scalia's hypothetical.
3. You repeat your accusation that Scalia is "just not trying very hard anymore." But Pierce, you lazy, lazy man. You are not trying at all.
4. But I am an idiot. An idiot to send this loser any more traffic. But I just had to kick his flabby old ass one more time.
Typical lefty response, to call your opponent stupid. But:
1. Hello? Pierce? You're writing a blog. Bloggers write their own post titles. You can call yourself a "writer" and call your post title a "headline," but I presume if I'm looking at a real blogger, you write your own post title.
But whether you write it or some unnamed person at Esquire does, you are responsible for it. And the words were not only ignorant; they resonated with anti-Italian material throughout your post. Or would you prefer to call it an "essay"?
2. Your post really was dumb. You insulted Justice Scalia when you did not understand what he was talking about. I pointed that out. You scribble — presumably doing your own writing — about tweaks to the ACA in the wake of criticism of the "Cornhusker kickback," in some desperate attempt to recover some dignity, but you still haven't shown any sign that you understand the purpose of Scalia's hypothetical.
3. You repeat your accusation that Scalia is "just not trying very hard anymore." But Pierce, you lazy, lazy man. You are not trying at all.
4. But I am an idiot. An idiot to send this loser any more traffic. But I just had to kick his flabby old ass one more time.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
"Sorry. I knew Icarus—Icarus was a friend of mine. Eliot Spitzer is no Icarus. Prickarus, maybe."
Snazzy writing, of the Esquire kind. Not sure if it's fair or if it even makes much sense, but one feels stimulated and vaguely smart.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
"You know men need lessons, of course."
A completely out-of-context clip for your amusement/puzzlement:
Context to be provided later. Today, I think.
UPDATE: The context. I'm talking about Esquire magazine.
Context to be provided later. Today, I think.
UPDATE: The context. I'm talking about Esquire magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
