Does law professor Glenn Reynolds need me to explain why this is a bad idea?
UPDATE: He’s responded to my email in a responsible way. Good show.
Yes, I think that he does need to explain why he’s “objectively pro-vandalism of private property.” I don’t suppose he thinks it would be acceptable for someone to write the same on his computer the next time he’s wi-fiing at the Student Union.
For a law professor, he does stretch the limits, doesn’t he:
And here’s a question: Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn’t exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority — or even a large and angry minority — of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. How far are we from that point?
Glad someone brought up the freedom of press post, because, if, per Glenn’s update, we take him at his word that it didn’t occur to him that he’s encouraging vandalism, then we should think again about whether the press post was an “implied threat.” That charge seemed like a stretch at the time, and it’s even less likely now.
If we take Glenn at his work that he never thought that running a gallery of vandalized NYT boxes on a right-wing site would encourage vandalism, then we’re pretty much assuming that he’s not too bright, aren’t we?
Come on, Ted. Frankly, you’ve gone weak in the knees because Instajerk gave you some attention. Stick to your guns here. You’re right.
I know I was right. What do you want me to do?
Reynolds says: “Don’t do that [vandalize a box and then send me a picture]! I’m only interested in found graffiti, not made graffiti.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I think this is legally valid under current rulings—in the “Nuremberg files” case the Supreme Court ruled that posting the addresses of abortion providers, grayed out if they were wounded and crossed out if they were killed, was legally protected free speech as opposed to encouragement to murder.
OTOH, that decision stank, and I don’t think Reynolds’ disclaimer mitigates his incitement to vandalize Time boxes at all.
Just to be clear; this vandalism is not one-millionth as bad as attacking abortion practitioners. I really don’t care about vandalism much at all. I’m just trying to say that in both cases the claim that what’s being done is strictly for informational purposes doesn’t hold much water given the context.
wink, wink.
see, ted, this is the instapundit starfucker trap. get quoted, and you go all weak in the knees.
Is this for real? Mr Insta thinks that defaced newspaper boxes is some sort of avant-garde protest of some sort? Where has he been for the last dozen years?
I could send in some pictures of National Post boxes defaced with accusations of fascism. (There’s plenty of those around Toronto to choose from, so it’s a trend!) Would Reynolds take that as credible evidence that Conrad Black’s vanity project lacks democratic credibility? Or would he take it as an example of decadent Leftists resorting to vandalism against private property because they know that they can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas? I have my suspicions.
Of course, Alexander Cockburn used to run a magazine called Lies of Our Times, which criticised the Times from the left. So maybe it’s the decadent Left that’s doing Insty’s work for him after all.
“…If, per Glenn’s update, we take him at his word that it didn’t occur to him that he’s encouraging vandalis…”
“If” indeed. As another poster pointed out, to assume that it did not occur to Instaschmuck that gleefully calling for photos of vandalized Times newsboxes would encourage the vandalizing of Times newsboxes is to assume that Instaschmuck is a moron, which he is not. Reynolds knew full well what he was doing, and his coy response to Barlow seems every bit as calculated as the original remarks.
”..then we should think again about whether the press post was an “implied threat.” That charge seemed like a stretch at the time, and it’s even less likely now.”
I accept your if-then formulation — and therefore find this statement to be as unsupportable as the previous one. Far from being a stretch, there is no nonabsurd way to interpret Reynolds press post as anything but a threat. After all, he is clearly part of that “angry minority” that thinks press coverage of Iraq is unpatriotic. Are we really supposed to assume he views himself as the minority within that minority who DON’T think doing away with freedom of the press is a reasonable response to news coverage that doesn’t conform to his view of the world? Note that Reynolds at no point suggests that a crackdown on the press would be a bad thing (just as he never suggests that vandalizing Times newsboxes would be a bad thing). Indeed, since he bizarrely suggests that freedom of the press was a creation of that conservative bete noire the 1960s, there’s every reason to believe that Reynolds doesn’t think much of the idea.
Instaschmuck is quite adept at keeping himself at arm’s length from the clear implications of his own words. It is that skill that has given him the very undeserved image of a serious commentator rather than a rhetorical thug of the type that frequent Free Republic and Lucianne.com.
“…If, per Glenn’s update, we take him at his word that it didn’t occur to him that he’s encouraging vandalis…”
“If” indeed. As another poster pointed out, to assume that it did not occur to Instaschmuck that gleefully calling for photos of vandalized Times newsboxes would encourage the vandalizing of Times newsboxes is to assume that Instaschmuck is a moron, which he is not. Reynolds knew full well what he was doing, and his coy response to Barlow seems every bit as calculated as the original remarks.
”..then we should think again about whether the press post was an “implied threat.” That charge seemed like a stretch at the time, and it’s even less likely now.”
I accept your if-then formulation — and therefore find this statement to be as unsupportable as the previous one. Far from being a stretch, there is no nonabsurd way to interpret Reynolds press post as anything but a threat. After all, he is clearly part of that “angry minority” that thinks press coverage of Iraq is unpatriotic. Are we really supposed to assume he views himself as the minority within that minority who DON’T think doing away with freedom of the press is a reasonable response to news coverage that doesn’t conform to his view of the world? Note that Reynolds at no point suggests that a crackdown on the press would be a bad thing (just as he never suggests that vandalizing Times newsboxes would be a bad thing). Indeed, since he bizarrely suggests that freedom of the press was a creation of that conservative bete noire the 1960s, there’s every reason to believe that Reynolds doesn’t think much of the idea.
Instaschmuck is quite adept at keeping himself at arm’s length from the clear implications of his own words. It is that skill that has given him the very undeserved image of a serious commentator rather than a rhetorical thug of the type that frequent Free Republic and Lucianne.com.
Uh, isn’t it possible that Reynolds isn’t a moron but that the possibility that his remark might incite anti-Times vandalism didn’t cross his mind (after all, how many of his readers are going to engage in vandalism? Does he have special right-wing mind-control powers?)? Why are the only options “moron” or “knew full well what he was doing and was just being coy in his update”?
I’m with dmm in thinking that someone writing “lies” on a NYT box might well be issuing that critique from the left. Definitely where I’m from that would be the case. So that makes one more way Instapundit might just be kinda dumb. (To add to the several we knew about coming into this.)
Reminds me of something that was in the Seattle Times the other day. What the article doesn’t mention is that some guy at one point pulled off all the hoods and dumped them. Passersby chased him, because he was inhibiting the artist’s right to free speech. Of course, one might also see the unhooding as an act of free speech …
Robert,
I agree that the possibility may not have crossed Reynolds’ mind with his first post, and I don’t think it means he’s dumb.
But it’s crossed his mind now, and he should know that his update isn’t going to discourage anyone. Not that I think it’s a big deal.
please. reynolds is the king of the no-retraction retraction, the no-update update, and the non-apology apology.
i hate to say it, but he played you, Ted. he gets to look (semi-)responsible by posting your e-mail, and yet people will still continue to send him photos for his dumb gallery.
btw, notice that he only requested no photos of made graffiti; he didn’t specifically request people not create the graffiti. i’m sure he’d be shocked to have that pointed out, as well. come on, people — the guy’s just a law professor; it’s not his job to parse words for a living!
Ted was right to give a civil response to Glenn’s acknowledgment of his point, but it seems to me like all it did was give him an excuse to make the provocation all-but-explicit. “Readers could commit acts of vandalism and send the photos to me! But they shouldn’t. (But if they do, I’ll still probably post them.)”
Coming after his previous post about rebellion against the decadent liberal press, how much more explicit could he get? The campaign of intimidation begins quietly.
Here’s a suggestion - a silly, juvenile one, but I have a pretty good track record at driving idiots and trolls to gibbering frothing 500+ post distraction by playing such silly juvenile games - you could advertise for defaced photos of Reynolds - horns, moustaches, text balloons, sexual partners, whatever imagination supplies, and post those in a little gallery.
Not that you’d be advocating that people do the LHOOQ thing to Reynolds, of course, just that you’d be interested in seeing what people might have done on their own…
bellatrys: Second that notion. But I suspect Glenn would find it hilarious, which might defeat the purpose from your perspective.
bellatrys: Second that notion. But I suspect Glenn would find it hilarious, which might defeat the purpose from your perspective.
oops — sorry for double-post.
Don’t miss the latest-est Update, from the guy who took the picture:
I took it at the Medical Center stop on the red line of the DC Metro while I was visiting Sgt. Laven across the street at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. I can only assume it was one of the families or friends of a soldier wounded or killed in battle that attempted to deface a paper that has shown so little respect for their loved ones’ efforts and valient bravery.
If he “can only assume” that, he’s not much of an assumer, and should not attempt to go pro.
“Uh, isn’t it possible that Reynolds isn’t a moron but that the possibility that his remark might incite anti-Times vandalism didn’t cross his mind.”
Gimme a break. Have you looked at Instaschmuck’s post? Here’s the complete text:
“MARINE SGT. PAUL LAVEN sends this link to a photo of more anti-New York Times graffiti.
By one of Kaus’s rules of punditry, two examples constitute a nationwide trend! It’s a popular revolution against Big Media!
Well, if the target were different, I’ll bet Maureen Dowd could write a column with no more basis than this.
If you see any more, send me a photo. Maybe I’ll start a gallery.”
Now where do you see the slightest suggestion that Instapundit has any objection to vandalizing Times newsboxes? Nowhere, of course. In fact, he doesn’t even refer to the act as vandalism — he calls it a “revolution against Big Media!” The tone throughout is one of gleeful approval — ending with Reynold’s annnouncement of a gallery in which he will immortalize similar acts of vandalism.
If it truly never occurred to Reynolds that this was the equivalent of endorsing a crime, then he is the biggest idiot on the Internet. And he isn’t. The biggest scumbag perhaps, but not the biggest idiot.
But for the sake of argument, let’s all lower our IQs by 50- or 60 points and pretend that Instaschmuck did not realize that the joyful celebration of vandalism just might encourage it. Surely you don’t think the possibility did not occur to him AFTER Barlow’s e-mail. But what was Reynolds’ response?
“That hadn’t crossed my mind. Don’t do that! I’m only interested in found graffiti, not made graffiti.”
In other words, Reynolds does not abandon his plan to honor acts of vandalism against the Times after Barlow told him this was a likely response to his “gallery.” No, he just covers his ass by saying “Don’t do it!” while leaving the incentive to do it in place — easily the most unconvincing retraction since Nixon intoned “But it would be wrong!” into an Oval Office microphone.
Get real. A man who came as close as he dared to suggesting that freedom of the press should be suspended for newspapers that don’t peddle the Bush line on Iraq would think nothing of slyly promoting vandalism of Times newsboxes. Now wouldn’t it be a hilarious revolution against the right-wing media if all the enterprising hackers who read this blog used their talents to get inside Instaschmuck and plaster the word “Lies” all over Reynolds’ copy — not that I am suggesting anyone do that, oh no. In fact, I’ll say flat out — Don’t do it! And to make sure people know what it is I am not asking them to do, I think all examples of cyber-vandalism of Reynolds’ blog should be posted here at Crooked Timber. That’s fair, isn’t it?
I notice that photos of vandalized NYT boxes are not exactly pouring into Reynold’s blog. Perhaps all Instapundit readers don’t sit around waiting to take “orders” from their master.
Let me know when the Instapundit-inspired epidemic begins.
Gosh dude, you really handed it to that Insta-geek putz, didn’t you? Yeah, you showed him.
(BURP)
So, I suppose I will be seeing a full-throated denunciation here the next time a full press run of some college paper that dares to be something other than socialist is destroyed by Left activists? I’m holding my breath! Holding! Holding! Still holding!
Megapotamus:
When a left-wing, tenured law professor does what you are describing, please let me know. I’ll gladly post a protest of it on my blog.
Randy, well, since no perpetrators are ever caught, the bar you set is pretty high, but here are some edifying examples of leftist suppression of free speech. Also, I suppose you are implying Reynolds is right wing. As a right winger myself, that’s a tough charge to stick on him. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=2725
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=10394
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11882
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12466
“Gosh dude, you really handed it to that Insta-geek putz, didn’t you? Yeah, you showed him.
(BURP)
So, I suppose I will be seeing a full-throated denunciation here the next time a full press run of some college paper that dares to be something other than socialist is destroyed by Left activists? I’m holding my breath! Holding! Holding! Still holding!”
Megapotamus has favored us with a classic example of what passes for sophisticated thinking in the wonderful world of wingnuttery — ham-handed sarcasm that doesn’t rise above the junior high school level (and in the case of the burp, falls far below it), ludicrously hyperbolic rhetoric (“some college paper that dares to be something other than socialist”), the random and pointless sprinkling of words like “communism” and “socialism” (see above), and most important of all, the utter absense of any real rebuttal to my post. Instead, Megapotamus pulls a Coulter and describes the hypothetical behavior of hypothetical liberals in a hypothetical situation. He (or she) makes no attempt whatsoever to refute what I wrote or defend what Instaschmuck wrote — though he has my sympathy there, since I realize he can’t defend the indefensible. Instead, he simply falls back on character assassination.
We of course saw this tactic in action within the last 24 hours, as Congressional wingnuts flew into stratospheric dudgeon over the remarks of Nancy Pelosi. They called her a Bush hater, they accused her of undermining the troops, they even engaged in some low level homophobia left over from Jean Kirkpatrick’s 1984 keynote speech to the GOP convention — but they did not refute a single word of Pelosi’s comments. Because they can’t.
Keep on postin’, Megapotamus. What you lack in intelligence you more than make up for in entertainment value.
“Instaschmuck” says it all, hello, pot? Oh, and the destruction of the newspapers is not in the least hypothetical, nor is the socialism of the Left. Isn’t that what Left means?
Oh and not a single word of Pelosi’s comments have been refuted because they are nothing but a rant, mad characterizations with which you obviously agree, but would have to be edited by a team of gifted psychiatrists to rise to the level of “opinion”.
Randy, well, since no perpetrators are ever caught, the bar you set is pretty high, but here are some edifying examples of leftist suppression of free speech. Also, I suppose you are implying Reynolds is right wing. As a right winger myself, that’s a tough charge to stick on him.
Megapotamus:
I know a strawman when I see one. As for Reynolds’s political leanings, I didn’t realize you spoke for all rightwingers.
The bar may be set, high, but the offer remains:
“When a left-wing, tenured law professor does what you are describing, please let me know. I’ll gladly post a protest of it on my blog.”
nor is the socialism of the Left. Isn’t that what Left means?
Not in this country, really. The further left of our political parties (the Democratic Party) is not socialist at all. Glad I could clear that up.
Stealing newspapers is a dumb and common stunt carried out by liberal college students, BTW. I don’t support it at all. I also don’t think everyone has time to denounce everything all the time. Blogs tend to comment on other blogs a lot; if a left-wing blogger as prominent as Reynolds (that would be Atrios, or Kos, only) calls for stealing college papers, I imagine Ted would be happy to denounce it if you call it to his attention when it happens.
My target was, always was, the tone of great moral outrage of the initial post and note to Reynolds. Also the juvenile appelations applied to him. Especially if one is an urban dweller like me, grafitti is endemic and, when political (not a majority), uniformly leftist. On the socialist charge, well friends, I admit I got a little hot under the collar and I know it often tweaks the Democrats/Centerleftists to be so called. Right and Left are problematic generalizations, of course, but I see no nuance in the characerizations of Reynolds. He’s a right winger? On what eveidence? Whatever, Mary. It should be said, the Republicans are far to Commie for me, as an anarchist.
“As for Reynolds’s political leanings, I didn’t realize you spoke for all rightwingers.”
I don’t but if Right Left have any meaning (and we know what it means generally, don’t we?) a quick examination of the Instapage will reveal, well, what is “Right Wing” in your book? I’ll break it down from mine; Anti-imigration (possibly racist), protectionist, religiously intolerant (although the Left makes some impressive stabs at that), nationalistic, homophobic, um, anti-semetic? I mean, that’s Pat Buchanan but we’ve seen an awful lot of conspiracy mongering from the Left lately in that vein… Well, a tough question and I should add, my right wingness is a stipulation. Ideologically I am an anarchist, or we might say, minarchist.
Or maybe voting for George Bush and intending to do so again makes one “right wing”. Boy, that would sure simplify things.
No, I just think broad brush smears against “the Left” qualifies.
Hmmm. So I guess broad-based smears against the right makes one a left-winger? Isn’t that what goes on here? Or am I missing something. Pleas for civility and respect are Jim-Dandy but no one is going to go for it unilaterally. Let me thank Matt above for the most measured, moderate comment I’ve seen here. Yet he makes his point, and aknowledges one. If we can see more of that good stuff maybe we can get somewhere. Thanks Matt.
“Instaschmuck” says it all.”
In this we are in total agreement, Mega. Instaschmuck indeed says it all.
“The destruction of the newspapers is not in the least hypothetical”
Indeed it is not — any more than, say, the thuggery of Tom Delay’s brownshirts who physically intimidated the vote recounters in Palm Beach in November of 2000. What you were writing about was the hypothetical response of hypothetical posters at this website to some future incident involving the destruction of newspapers. Read what you write, Mega — if the rest of us have to slog through it, so do you.
“…the socialism of the Left. Isn’t that what Left means?”
Based on your bizarre suggestion above that Instaschmuck is not a right-winger, I think we have another point of agreement here — you are every bit as qualified to pass judgment on what is Left as you are to pass judgment on what is Right.
“Oh and not a single word of Pelosi’s comments have been refuted because they are nothing but a rant”
This of course is complete and utter nonsense. Whatever one may think of them, Pelosi’s comments included very specific charges that can be easily refuted if they are wrong. For instance, did the administration suggest that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war and the reconstruction? Yes or no. Is that what happened? Yes or no. Is this an example of competence? Yes or no. These are perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions to ask — and unfortunately for your side, more and more Americans are asking them. The latest Zogby poll show that a stunning 64% of us disapprove of how Bush is handling Iraq — and a paltry 36% approve. The reason that Hastert and company — and you — can’t refute what Pelosi said is because what she said is true.
“… mad characterizations… [that] would have to be edited by a team of gifted psychiatrists to rise to the level of ‘opinion’.”
An interesting bit of character assassination coming from you. Equating dissent with mental illness was a favorite tactic of the Soviet Union. I guess the old saw is true — go far enough off the deep end at either end of the political spectrum, and the distinctions between left and right vanish into a hellish blur of totalitarianism.
“nor is the socialism of the Left. Isn’t that what Left means?
Not in this country, really. The further left of our political parties (the Democratic Party) is not socialist at all. Glad I could clear that up.”
Perfect answer, Matt. And since Megapotamus speaks so highly of you, I am sure we can all count on him to never, ever, ever equate Democrats or liberals with socialists again, right?
“Stealing newspapers is a dumb and common stunt carried out by liberal college students, BTW.”
Actually, stealing or trashing newspapers on campuses seems to me to be done by radical students who would be very unhappy to be called liberals. I very much doubt acts of that sort are approved of by the sort of people who read this blog — and I’m sure you are right about Ted’s opinion of that kind of vandalism. The right wing of course likes to trumpet outrages of that sort. But after four years of the Bush occupa… I’m sorry, administration, it is tragically clear which side of the American political divide is the one with the totalitarian impulses. Instaschmuck’s delight over the vandalizing of New York Times newsboxes (which Mega STILL hasn’t criticized, I see)is quaint compared to what his heroes are doing.
” a hellish blur of totalitarianism.”
Um, for someone concerned about totalitarianism you seem pretty upset at the liberation of Iraq. I’m going to use just your example, on the financing of the war from Iraqi oil revenues as my jump point.
“Yes or no. Is that what happened? Yes or no.”
No. In the sense that I don’t own my house because I haven’t paid it off yet. As you may not know, Iraqi oil production is back up to pre-war levels, another impossibility, so called, that has materialized despite the evil buffoonery of George Bush. Whether we ultimately draw from their well is for the future, if the Iraqi government is willing to pay the war costs, great, otherwise we can well absorb them. I guess you want to brand Wolfowitz a liar because it hasn’t happened yet. Will you hail him as a truther when it does? Or does such an event violate the laws of physics in your reality. ;-) I will spare you a snarky recitation of Pelosi’s “mad characterizations” as that is the bulk of the article we both read. And I stand by my characterizations… whether they are mad or otherwise time will tell but if she makes hers can’t I make mine? Don’t you make yours? Anyhow, I’m glad you brought up the polling… one of my favorite subjects.
“The latest Zogby poll show that a stunning 64% of us disapprove of how Bush is handling Iraq — and a paltry 36% approve. “
Nice numbers for you, but speaking of stunning, brace yourself in Nov hoss, for while 64% is an impressive margin in an election, that ain’t no election or election question. It may distress you to think that in addition to those who are Against the War and For Bush, there are those who agree that Bush has made a hash of it, but because HE HASN’T PROSECUTED IT HARD ENOUGH. Are these folks likely Kerry voters? Are they likely to say, hell with it and stay home? Make your bets accordingly. Your 64% (I’m assuming that was the biggest split you could find among many polls.) is not a monolith but the pro-Bush side IS. This recognition will spare you many a head scratching on Nov 3rd.
Pleas for civility and respect are Jim-Dandy but no one is going to go for it unilaterally. Let me thank Matt above for the most measured, moderate comment I’ve seen here. Yet he makes his point, and aknowledges one. If we can see more of that good stuff maybe we can get somewhere. Thanks Matt.
Coming from the same person who went to my site and called me “a nut” in the comments to this post without addressing any of the substance, I hope you’ll forgive me for thinking that the above comment of yours is laughably hypocritical.
“never, ever, ever equate Democrats or liberals with socialists again, right?”
Wrong. It’s, as Colin Powell said of White Power Structure, “A lazy, loaded locution that serious people should avoid.” And avoid it, I do, but when faced with ranting, unserious people, like yourself, sometimes…
You are a crack up, hoss! I hope you aren’t pinning your psychological well being on the electoral fortunes of the Left in this country. If so, be sure your meds are filled WAY ahead of time. Cheers.
Randy, you might want to check that link. Is what it leads to really what you were griping about? “McCarthyism”? Huwha?
richter “Bush occupa… I’m sorry, administration,”
Way to maintain that rhetorical high ground! I am cracking UP!
Okay, quite an avalanche here. Anyone who would like to write me direct, please feel free. If you google my obnoxious moniker you will get mucho ammo, if you like. There is another megapotamus out there but seems mostly concerned with cat blogging so caution is in order before any denunciations. Good luck and good day to all. That’s not a sign off. I’ll be back.
Oh, I don’t denounce the graffiti. Never have and I endorse the sentiment. I might make myself a stencil.
For my money, to be on the right in this country involves:
social conservatism—opposition to gay rights, abortion rights, sex education;
opposition to governmental measures that attempt to rectify past public/private and current private discrimination;
opposition to egalitarian/redistributionist/etc. fiscal/governmental policy;
support for restrictions on civil liberties (except the Second Amendment) in the name of security;
an aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy;
and the usual partisan stuff—yes, voting for Bush, and smears against the left too.
I didn’t include, for instance, small government, because that just doesn’t seem to be on the table at the moment.
Reynolds qualifies big-time on the fourth and fifth, not at all on the first, and does so on the second; I’m not sure of his views on the third. Does this make him right-wing? Partly it’s a matter of emphasis and what’s important right now, but I think he’s pretty right-wing.
<Randy, you might want to check that link. Is what it leads to really what you were griping about? “McCarthyism”? Huwha?
Yes it does. It’s one of many, however.
In any event, going to my site and calling me names places you squarly in a glass hosue with a stone in your hand on the subject of civility. Grow up.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review