|
[Previous entry: "Bulwarks against tyranny"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Erm, are you quite sure about that?"] 12 June 2003: "Why I can't be bothered to read Instapundit"A couple of days ago, Jackie D started an entry with the words: I take it for granted that everybody reads Glenn Reynolds, but know from conversations with many people who aren't big on blogs [...] that not everybody does actually read Glenn Reynolds.Even though I'm a fairly avid consumer of blogs, I don't read Instapundit, not any more. I was actually Instapundited in late March, which drove my hits to the heady heights of 3,056 for one day. After that, it seemed churlish not to read the guy's stuff. After two or three weeks, however, I could no longer escape the conclusion that whatever issues with which Reynolds might be conversant, international law and the structure and functioning of supranational organisations (such as the UN and EU) are not among them. In an entry of 16-Apr-2003, I cited several comments by Reynolds which served only to display his ignorance of how "the UN" functions. Henry "Gallowglass" Farrell has expressed similar sentiments regarding Reynolds' understanding of the EU; in a round up of interesting items on the internet on 14-Apr-2003, Farrell states, First, a new blog on EU-related issues. Of great interest to those, such as meself, who take a direct interest in EU politics. Should also be of interest to those like Glenn Reynolds, who blog frequently on the EU without the slightest idea of what it is or how it works. But probably won’t be.On 06-May-2003, Farrell opens the entry "Polverone" with a quote from Reynolds: "It's entirely possible that both of them are right" says Glenn Reynolds, commenting on allegations of corruption swapped between Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi and European Commission President Roman Prodi. It's equally possible—indeed probable—that Glenn Reynolds doesn't know what he's talking about.Farrell then goes on to explain why Reynolds is wrong, and anyone who reads any newspaper with a half decent coverage of matters European (which rules out the bulk of the British and American media) knows Farrell's point is valid. Whatever the merits of Reynolds' rundown of the WMD issue to which Jackie links (most of which, unkind observers might point out, he merely quotes), he rather spoils the whole thing with this passage: Iraq was required by the U.N. resolutions in force to prove its innocence, something that it did not do. This, in my opinion, is irrelevant. The UN is a body of no moral or -- really -- legal standing in such matters.If this were the case, there would be no nothing even resembling a legitimate casus belli for Operation "Iraqi Freedom." The NBC weapons stockpiles and development programmes the Iraqi régime was alleged to have have not been found; the ties to al-Qaeda the régime was alleged to have have not been proven, and likely never will. The only justification for this war with any basis in international law—or, for that matter, reality—was the demonstrated refusal of the Iraqi government to comply with relevant UNSC resolutions 687 to 1441 inclusive; this refusal was, it should be added, demonstrated by the findings of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. The upshot of all this is that the amount of irritation I experience as a result of Reynolds' self-satisfied ignorance outweighs any potential benefits I might incur from reading his blog. Moreover, as long as Instapundit.com continues to get several hundred thousand hits a day (or whatever it is), I don't expect Reynolds will feel compelled to improve his performance. And I don't feel like feeding his complacency. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
