« am i evil? | Main | yet more commentary on ted rall being a festering sore on the face of mankind »

what about the four horseWOMEN?

Max Sawicky is not only a leftist but a sexist leftist. I thought lefties were all about equality and such, but I guess not.

See, Max not only dubbed Steven Den Beste, Glenn Reynolds, Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan the Four Horsemen of the Ablogalypse (see, here), but he also inferred that Jane Galt is just a silly, dumb broad.

Mistake on all counts. First of all, he plays by that tired standard that only male war bloggers are worthy of giving any attention to, but he thought he was actually insulting the four bloggers he did refer too. (see, Andrea).

As Francis commented in Andrea's post:
Jane Galt, a.k.a. Megan McArdle, could give Mr. Sawicky 50 IQ points and still take him with one cerebral lobe tied behind her back.

Well, Andrea came up with something to show that we women bloggers can be just as deadly as the men:

click for scary size

That's Jo-Anne Jacobs, Megan McArdle and myself scaring down a leftie.

See Sean Kirby fun with this.

UPDATE: Sam at Unigolyn has a great image as well.


Now THAT is a work of art! :-)

You're right! (#14 "About Me")

Um...sorry. I saw nothing but praise for Jane Galt (whoever she is) and perhaps words of disdain for her ideas, but no insults to her intellect. I certainly did not get the idea that he feels she's a "silly dumb broad" (which are very much YOUR words, and appeared nowhere, even euphamistically, on Max's blog)

Although I do agree with you that right-wing male bloggers certainly don't hold a monopoly on sexism, Max hasn't gone there in this post. And the funny thing is that you wouldn't actually have to dig very far to find actual examples instead of making shit up.

Dru, it wasn't in that particular post I linked to that he was the most offensive about Megan.

What I found particularly silly about Max's post was his overt implication that the very title of Mona Charon's book and the indorsements for it indicate a lack of civility.

What he said:
In the bookstore the other day I noticed a new book by Mona Charen entitled "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First." The back features blurbs from William Bennett, William F. Buckley, Robert Bork, William Kristol, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. These may be extremist by 1970 political standards, but they are not peripheral figures. They are pillars of the Right. So where is civility when this sort of rhetoric is endorsed enthusiastically?

Say whaa...?

Someone needs to come up with a special Latin name for the type of willfully stupid and illogical arguments that seem to be the hallmark of "the Left."
I know there's "reductio ad absurdum," but this is different. Where's the Abominable Doctor Weevil when we need him?

'drublood' needs to work on his irony detector. He says "I saw nothing but praise for Jane Galt (whoever she is)". She makes no effort to conceal her real name, which is Megan McArdle (hence 'MM'). Here is what Max says about her in the post in question:

"Ordinarily her commentary and reader comments have been, in my experience, inside what I would call a zone of rationality."

". . . most every time I have visited the commentary seemed relatively free of rancor."

". . . as right-wing blogs go, Asymmetrical Information is one of the better ones."

"MM is embarrassed because she said something dumb and compounded it by saying even stupider things in her own defense. But I would like to invoke my scintilla of influence and urge that she be cut some slack. She ain't that bad. She's wrong about most everything, but she's thoughtful and usually she's nice."

Other than "thoughtful" in the last sentence quoted, I see nothing about her intellect except damning with very faint praise and patronizing condescension. It's clear that Max Sawicky thinks she's not quite as dumb as most other right-wingers, but that's still way dumber than his own brilliant self. A dumb person who thinks, however ineptly, before speaking or writing can be 'thoughtful', but he or she is still dumb. The adjective seems to have been chosen to avoid giving her any credit for intelligence. After all, Max knows that if she were intelligent she would be on the left.

I'd just like to say that Michele's Horsewoman has a really nice rack.

Glad to oblige, Pearl, but what exactly would you like a Latin equivalent for? An empty argument would be 'argumentum vacuum'. An argument directed at nothing or nothingness would be 'argumentum ad nihilum', 'argumentum ad vacuitatem', or 'argumentum ad inanitatem'. The first of the three could also mean an argument to no effect, a useless argument.

I suspect there's already a Latin name out there, but I don't know much about classifications of logical errors.

I have no pity for a man who underestimates a woman, he usually gets what he deserves.

It's like riding a motorcycle without a helmet or operating heavy equipment under the influence of cold medicine, exciting at times but always dangerous.

Of course, Michele is the one with the exposed boobs.

Truth in advertising ;)

Mr. Sawicky's assumptions about the superiority of his intellect, a commonly observed syndrome on the Left, strike me as a perfect illustration of what Eric Hoffer called "the vanity of the selfless":

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business...The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice the utmost humility, is boundless." (From The True Believer)

Dr. Weevil,
This attempt at Latin no doubt is atrocious but would "argumentum en anus capum" (arguing with ones head up ones rear) be close to correct?

And I've heard, you're just in it, because they needed someone to show tits... ;-)

And if you look carefully at where "Michele's" eyes are pointing, I think you'll see what part of Leftism she's trying to get a grip on. :-)


See, Max not only dubbed Steven Den Beste, Glenn Reynolds, Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan the Four Horsemen of the Ablogalypse (see, here), but he also inferred that Jane Galt is just a silly, dumb broad.

Er, ah, Michele: the listener infers. The speaker implies.

How could a Cerebus fan miss that one?!?


Dr. Weevil,

I think Brand C got it. I do like 'argumentum ad inanitatem' quite a lot though.

OTOH, I suspect that "argument" wasn't really what I meant to say; what I'm seeing is really more an overarching (not to mention overweening) attitude toward ones imagined inferiors.

Hoffer's "vanity of the selfless" pretty much sums it up. Come to think of it, Thomas Sowell's "vision of the annointed" is also quite appropriate.

Whatever it is, I seem to be seeing it a lot these days.