Cripes. All I have to do to get an instalanche is publicly de-link him?

Kick ass!

Not a problem, I'll delink you shortly.

Thanks.

Ah yes, anyone who doesn't follow the rightwing marching orders in lock-step must be cast out as a heretic.
There's lots I dislike/loathe about the ACLU, but there are times it is on the proper side, such as opposing BCRA. It has its uses.

I love watching Glenn mess with ideologically pure minds, just by being his relaxedly libertarian self.

I'm not a big fan of the ACLU, but anyone who can't acknowledge the good they do is, well, silly. I put those kind of people in the same class as those who say that Christianity is all just gay-bashing and pedophile priests.

Depending on the source, being disliked can be an unintentional compliment.

What Tall Dave said...

Also, I still find the "You're delinked!!" attack so very amusingly self-aggrandizing, esp when directed at Glenn.

Regardless of the ACLU's terrorist-defending ways, they are an organization which has accomplished some good things.

I love the ACLU. I'd like to marry it, but there's no individual-national organization marriage law. Maybe I'll just send it love letters.

HEY GUYS (note there's no women acting stupid)

THERE'S A HURRICANE ON. (And some war in some ME country, I forget which)

Who links who is about as important as the color of Cindy Sheehan's lipstick.

Get over yourselves, stoptheaclu.

The way to really build a conservative majority is to Balkanize it- James Carville

I fear nothing more than the anti-ACLU wing of the Conservative Movement- Bob Shrum

God damn you to Hell Bill! Politics is not an individual expression of conscience driven by comity and rational discourse, it is a TEAM sport and we are here to win!!!!!

If I had a blod I would delink your ass to the third ring of Tatarus!

I'm a fan of the ACLU's past work, lately *last couple decades or so* they've begun to blur the line between actual rights and whatever the current liberal cause/outrage happens to be and pointing out what's wrong with them is no less misguided than ignoring their good work.

Saying that however, this entire delinking campaign highlights what I hated about the Republican Party and the Right in general, the single issue crap. We would get trounced because X percentage of conservative voters wouldn't support Y candidate until he got on primetime television and pledged to 100% support to Z issue. No 90% wasn't good enough, it was all or nothing.

The Democrats didn't give a rat's behind as long as they were in power, no issue was more important than that. Thankfully that unity is no longer there, but I shudder to think if they should achieve it again while we continue this pointless bickering.

If I can blogroll a raving lunatic like Andrew Sullivan, I can blogroll a guy who did work for the ACLU.

Instapundit belittled STOP the ACLU's whole "raison d'etre," which demanded some response. While it seems like an over-reaction, I don't think they had many options, with their limited shpere of public influence. They could have quietly de-linked him themselves, or wrote a short post about his bad review of a book they are promoting.

There was more to it than that. STOP the ACLU is not truly a "single issue" organization, and has members who agree with the ACLU a small percentage of the time, myself among them. That wasn't what Instapundit said that rankled. The statement about the goal of stopping the ACLU being silly was the most harmful to this cause(I know-DUH!)

Jay from STOP clearly took offense at this, and decided to take on the "giant," a move which has provided much publicity in the bloggoshere. Whether it's to STOP the ACLU's benefit, only time will tell. I never linked to Instapundit in the first place, so I have no decision to make.

I will continue to support STOP the ACLU, because I don't see this as a very big thing.

They are right to stand up for their principles, and I believe Instapundit was wrong in his opinion about opposing the ACLU.

Some links lost, other links gained, what's the big difference, except to blog addicts? It does make interesting reading, though. At least on the STOP the ACLU site, and the ones like this that Instapundit linked to. He didn't actually write much on his blog about this. Thanks for providing a forum for my two cents.

What seems like a logical step by STOP THE ACLU has become a giant "whose is bigger" competition for everyone involved, it seems.

Seriously? Is De-linking Reynolds really an issue? Whether or not you like/agree with/enjoy the guy, he pretty much has the brand recognition to beat all brand recognition of political blogs.

But the Stop the ACLU dude won't link to Reynolds? Isn't that kind of akin to: Ted, the crank down the block won't watch the news 'cause it'd filled with libruhls?

I mean, sure it probably has a lot of meaning on a personal level, but is Instapundit going to dry up because a handfull of small-time bloggers decide to get pissy?

BTW I just delinked Kos. He'll miss the 4 hits per day that my blog sent. Ha! Take that .0000001 percent hit in your pipe and smoke it, while I sit back in smug self-satisfaction. Bitch.

I don't know. I spend alot of my time in the real world, where Instapundit is about a known as LEAVWORLD. Which is to say, not known at all. He may be a major force in the bloggosphere, but STOP the ACLU might get more widely known because of their true opponent, the ACLU. It's a cause that's bigger than this whole blog-fight. If someone like O'reilly had Nedd or Jay on his show, I'm sure Instapundit wouldn't come up.

That's life, and also the reason I don't make too much of this.

I mean, sure it probably has a lot of meaning on a personal level, but is Instapundit going to dry up because a handfull of small-time bloggers decide to get pissy?

Of course not. But the ironic things is, when a blog like "Stop the ACLU" delinks a relatively reasonable character like Reynolds - a man that thinks the ACLU has problems but doesn't agree that they should be totally demonized, BUT generally has an open mind and is willing to consider thoughtful arguments - they shoot themselves in the foot, as well as fly the unreasonable wingnut colors.

In short, "Stop the ACLU" is no longer trying to convince individuals that are reasonable and disagree, they're just interested in preaching to the choir; reveling in the purity of their purpose.

Then again Christopher, if it weren't for Instapundit I would never have heard of Stop the ACLU. And now that they don't link to Instapundit, I doubt I'll ever hear of them again.

Au contraire, mon frere! You put several qualifiers, and opinions in that last comment, without claiming them as such. Instapundit as much as said "this idea is stupid," which was a direct affront to STOP the ACLU.

I have twice mentioned that the blog war aspect of this means NOTHING to the general public, but you still don't seem to get it.

If blogs like Istapundit had the power to dethrone Dan Rather, and others in the MSM, what makes you think that the 'pundit is not as vulnerable, at least on this issue? I've read many comments on three or four sites, and it has become as much a debate about Instapundit as it has about STOP the ACLU. Woe to the "high and mighty," and welcome in the new kid!

I am not a "lockstep" guy, but I defend STOP the ACLU, because I'd rather openly oppose an organization that I disagree with over 90 percent of the time, than brag about the 10 percent that I agree with them.

I was responding to Bill in that last comment.

To Scott, you can't "un-hear" about something. You may never hear of it again, but you heard about it already. If you hear about it again, it will not be for the first time, thanks to Instapundit. He actually helped STOP the ACLU, for sure.

Instapundit as much as said "this idea is stupid," which was a direct affront to STOP the ACLU.

Sure. And

1. I'm not merely talking about that site

2. I'm still saying that, direct affront or not, if their objective is to really "stop the ACLU" and convince others to "stop the ACLU," it's probably a good idea to make a sound case telling Reynolds why he's wrong, instead of cutting him off because he doesn't agree with the degree of your opposition. Reynolds' position was on "the other side," but it's not etched in granite. He's a reasonable guy. Someone that shuts him off for debate based on those comments? Less so.

I have twice mentioned that the blog war aspect of this means NOTHING to the general public, but you still don't seem to get it.

I'm not an idiot. I'm not commenting about the parameters of a "blog war."

This is more about a mindset of shitting on reasonable people that don't wholeheartedly agree with you instead of waging an effective political effort. Like it or not, a guy like Reynolds has a large share of voice, and is relatively open to being convinced with compelling arguments. Publicly burning bridges with him in some fit of conviction - over the mild comments he made - is simply pointless. Stupid. Laughable.

If blogs like Istapundit had the power to dethrone Dan Rather, and others in the MSM, what makes you think that the 'pundit is not as vulnerable, at least on this issue?

I don't even know how to respond to that, it's so silly.

That's it, I'm delinking all of you.

O.K. I will chime in on this. First, Bill...I delinked you ONLY because you asked me to.

Second, I really didn't expect that such an important and reasonable blogger like Glenn would really care enough about me delinking him to link to it. So he really made this a big deal. I've emailed Glenn several times discussing and providing many links to what the ACLU has done wrong, so I gave him plenty of chances to be reasonable enough to see my side of the issues.

Out of everything that shows the evils of the ACLU I have posted, Glenn never linked to, and decided to only link to a negative post. So what! Its my blogroll! If I decide I don't enjoy reading someone anymore, what is the big deal? I decided to announce why to my readers. It took off from there and several wanted me to start a list. The post has been updated several times showing WHY the ACLU should be demonized.

Because their evils far outweigh any good they have done. I didn't expect this to be such a huge deal. I usually only get around 1,000 readers a day. I thought I was announcing it to them. Now the whole blogosphere knows, and so what! I see where all the cards lay now on issues I care about.

I am open minded. Volokh says to delink him too, but I don't have a link to him so I might just add one. See, Volokh debates with reason and provides a forum to refute him in. That, I can appreciate...not someone who bashes a cause I care about without providing any kind of back up to his claims, and ignores emails half the time...and has no comment section or trackbacks. Even Malkin has trackbacks.

So, I'm taking the flak, and so be it. I haven't lost any of my supporters from it, and the only people that I have lost are people I never had, and frankly from the remarks they left, I wouldn't have wanted. And they wouldn't have wanted to support me in the first place.

I have a few high profile bloggers on my list, and more to come. I could care less if it affects him or not. It was never meant to be like that. He's the one that announced it to a larger audience.

Oh, and in all that talk of Volokh...

You also provide a forum of debate, and I appreciate that.

Bill, I cannot agree with your characterization of Stop The ACLU's delinking as childish, or stifling debate, or what not. The idea of Stop the ACLU, and Jay, going around, in no small part thanks to you, is portraying him as unreasonable oaf attacking Reynolds for his ideas, which, if you read the site... and, hey, look, he replied up there, anyway, it simply is not the case.

Bill, again, you're a part of this "Whose is bigger" fight I mentioned.

OHNOES -

I don't really give a whit what you think of my characterization, or whether you think my post has something to do with the size of my unit.

I also wasn't emphasizing that all debate is being "stifled." More that the delinkers are doing their political goals disservice by shunning a moderate (with a big pulpit, an opposing view, yet certain sympathies to their cause - thus the potential to be convinced).

Let's just say that your failure to grasp my point (as well as your outsized skepticism on science in the other post) makes me, uh, question your analytical skill.

I praised this site for having a forum of debate unlike Reynolds. I see you are responding to everyones comments except mine. Why is that?

Because it was long and I hadn't read it till now. CONSPIRACY MINDED, aren't we?

Fine, delink him. It's your site. I think that it's silly. Shunning Reynolds is like turning your back on a large portion of the center-right. I asked you to delink me because I largely share his mixed view. Criticize him? Fine. Remove him from your bookmarks forevermore because of that post? Overwrought.

What more do you want me to say?

Hey, it isn't MY fault that I was made to take a college course about the nature of science only to see that much of it is driven by egos, political pressure, and financial gain-seeking.

Then again, I shall allow your reverance toward the alabaster idol of SCIENCE(tm), especially when condensed into CONVENIENT NEWS ARTICLE FORM, especially because neither science nor news articles have ever been wrong, omitted relevant contextual data, or written with any sorts of inaccuracies whatsoever! No, sir!

From my clearly flawed analytical abilities, Jay claims to have already tried to open debate and convince Reynolds to no apparent result.

Please, redefine some more of what you wrote earlier, because it seems like the belief you have that Jay did NO SUCH THING has been driving everything you have said.

As a matter of fact, I've opened up the opportunity for debate again:

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/09/01/instapundit-plays-the-victim/

OHNOES -

First:

Then again, I shall allow your reverance toward the alabaster idol of SCIENCE(tm), especially when condensed into CONVENIENT NEWS ARTICLE FORM, especially because neither science nor news articles have ever been wrong, omitted relevant contextual data, or written with any sorts of inaccuracies whatsoever! No, sir!

As anyone reading this site for more than a month knows, I deconstruct science that's misrepresented in mainstream news articles ALL THE TIME. It's like a hobby/fetish of mine.

And the only thing that's nearly as unreasonable as having NO skepticism towards an MSM science article is having TOO MUCH skepticism, because you don't feel like taking the time to analyze it, and then VOICING that skepticism as if you've got something worthy to add to the debate. If your only comment is, "I don't think that's valid because the MSM lies," just skip commenting until you are aware that rats and marsupials don't share nearly as much DNA with humans as chimps.

As for Jay opening up the debate with Instapundit -

From my clearly flawed analytical abilities, Jay claims to have already tried to open debate and convince Reynolds to no apparent result.

Please, redefine some more of what you wrote earlier, because it seems like the belief you have that Jay did NO SUCH THING has been driving everything you have said.

This could be your famously flawed analytic abilities, or it could be legitimate lack of clarity on my part. The idea of Reynolds legitimately debating a blogger that gets 1,000 visits a day on more than a one-off basis was not meant to be taken literally. Believe it or not, Reynolds doesn't link me nearly as often as I'd like either, has failed to link articles that have taken contrary positions, and I've never linked nor blogrolled "Stop the ACLU" (was only dimly aware of it) until this latest scenario.

So saying "Reynolds hasn't joined the debate" is like saying "Julia Roberts won't take my phone calls, that bitch!"

My analysis is contingent upon a general principle - that shunning, delinking, especially righteous public displays of such behavior - should be reserved for a much higher standard of malice than a relatively moderate pundit saying that "demonization of the ACLU is a bit silly," especially when his qualifier to that statement says "I do feel that they've become overly partisan in recent years," which endorses a major part of the delinkers position.

Understand?

I don't link to Kos because he implies awful things about American contractors deserving to die in Iraq, I don't link AmericaBlog because its propieter likes to dig up personal information on opponents and destroy their lives.

But do I delink Kevin Drum because he has a position that pisses me off and that I don't agree with? No. Furthermore, do I whine that Drum won't debate me? (he specifically ignored a great post on Social Security that I wrote in response to his post, one that I felt had him dead to rights, for example)? No. I don't even know if Kevin Drum is aware of who I am.

So my point is not contingent upon Reynolds LITERALLY engaging "Stop the ACLU" in debate on the terms that he'd like - my commentary is directed for reserving true outrage for those that are an intractable enemy to your position, or engage in truly hostile commentary and should be subdued or ignored.

If any of those sites want to attack Reynolds, go for it. State your case (and many of them have). But shunning a center-right blogger with a mixed opinion on the ACLU is just silly from a practical standpoint of advancing your cause, and is indicative of the lack of efficacious savvy on the part of the activist.

Then again, I could be wrong, as this minor (MINOR) kerfuffle has probably got that blog more exposure than its had previously.

Short version: I'm writing about larger issues here than the specifics of the dynamic between one small blog and one big blogger. I'm writing about ideological intolerence. And much of my critique can be more relevantly applied to the other bloggers that have delinked Reynolds, as they are ostensibly not even "one issue" sites like "Stop the ACLU." (which was linked because it had the clearest summary of the situiation and a round-up to the delinkers).

Does that help?

Hey, I read another scientific article a while back that claimed... dangit, I wish I could remember the species, that some other species that barely was related to humans shared a surprisingly large amount of DNA with humans (But less than 99%, of course.). So sue me if I think that science can send mixed messages and I want to view each article that comes out with "Hmmm... that's interesting... could be the entire story, could not be..." especially when it can be used to leverage a political belief of any sort.

Young Earth Creationists are still wrong, though.

I guess it would be fair to characterize some of the other delinkers in the way that you have, but I still think that Jay has not cut off all attempts at debate with Reynolds, and, to be honest, I don't see how delinking sets up a wall blocking off honest debate that much anyway (But that's a definite "What do I know?" issure.). To call it true outrage would probably, again, be more accurate of the other delinkers, and probably giving too much credit to the act of delinking anyway.

But, yeah, when you boil it down to the ideological intolerance level, I agree with you. Maybe I'm quixotic, but would delinking imply that they would never again read or talk to Reynolds? When we reach THAT level, again, I agree with you, but I'm simply trying to defend a few of Jay's actions. Just that I don't like the selection of your characterizations when applied to Jay that seem unfair. Stuff like people emailing Glenn saying that they're removing bookmarks? Ennh... most definitely "Whose is bigger" self-indulgence at best. Intolerance at worst.

PIMF: *Hooks this sentence up to life support.*

Just that I don't like the selection of your characterizations that when applied to Jay seem unfair.

This discussion, in retrospect, seems too serious. Let's remind ourselves we're all on the same team with some levity.

I am making a blog and delinking you and I am bookmarking you and destroying the bookmark and I am dummying your domain in my host file so I can nevar hit your domain ever ever again and I will call a targetted napalm strike down on any blog that links you in any form, fashion, or sense.

That done, there's a few more opportunities, though, if you will indulge.

And, let's not mince words, mine is the biggest here. :P!

Why do you attack Jay and not his issues?! HYPOCRISY!

Oh, so Glenn is too important to debate with a small timer like me. I see. That's crap and you know it. It is exactly as OHNOES said. Who's is bigger?

I pointed out that Malkin even has trackbacks, and many high traffic sites have comment sections.