N.Y. Times Quotes Volokh Conspiracy:
"I think it is fair to say that the D.C. Circuit has repudiated the vast bulk of the Bush administration's clean-air regulatory reforms, which were the administration's most notable and significant (if not always wise) environmental policy initiatives," Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, commented on the case on a legal affairs blog, The Volokh Conspiracy.
Not the first such quote (I think there have been four other New York Times quotes of our posts before this one), but always nice to see.
UPDATE: Whoops, forgot to include the link to Jonathan's original post.
Had you it all to do over again, knowing then what you know now, would you have named the blog differently?
These ones contain quotes from the blog:
Aug. 20, 2008; Mar. 18, 2008; Aug. 19, 2006; June 20, 2005
These ones mention the blog, but don't quote it:
Mar. 19, 2007; Dec. 24, 2006; Aug. 30, 2006; Dec. 18, 2005; Oct. 7, 2005; Dec. 2, 2004
(There's also a duplicate of the March 18, 2008 story.)
But seriously, it's interesting that the NYT is apparently monitoring VC blog posts (not to mention quoting them authoritatively).
This is off-topic, but this point always bothered me when Hillary Clinton referenced a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."
A conspiracy is more than agreement -- it is an agreement to commit a crime. If three people agree to meet at a local restaurant at noon, that is not a "Conspiracy to Do Lunch" because lunch is not a crime.
There is no question that there was a large, organized political opposition to then-President Clinton. But that Hillary viewed it as a "conspiracy" speaks volumes about her view of legitimate democratic opposition.
After a couple of months' of back-and-forth, I was able to convince them that US Constitutional Law issues were indeed something I needed to follow for professional reasons.
Your trust in your fellow man is touching, and I daresay a bit inspiring.
Conspire on.
But on top of that, I don't see the error. I assume you're suggesting "these ones" is wrong, and a quick Google search did reveal to me that some people say it's "incorrect" (see, for instance, here and here). Saying that something is incorrect, though, isn't the same as demonstrating it, even under some prescriptivist theory.
Nor is the argument that "these ones" can be shortened to "these" persuasive. Lots of usages that can be shortened are quite normal, and aren't evidence of lack of "mastery" of the words involved. So if you have some authorities or arguments that support your position, please let us know.
Why don't you educate all of us on the proper usage of "these"?
Well, you blog. Most readers of the
The Grey Ladynewspapers don't, and tend to harbor colorful theories regarding those who do. I certainly share your hope that the name of your blog enhances, rather than detracts from, the likelihood that your contributions to the national conversation gain a wider hearing.I know that sounds stuffy, but I've been reading, and of course enjoying immensely, Johnson and Churchill. Wonder what Churchill would have done with electronic media....
One guess would be the theory that you're the conspiracy theorists, rather than conspiracy theorees. One can find a case or two of the former when surfing inside the intertubes, you know.
Actually beats me - I'm a trusting soul like you appear to be. I'm just often amazed at the conceptions people have of what the internet is all about, especially blogs.
Stuff like This.
So now the quote is wrong?
I have never seen any Volokh Conspiracy blogger denounce arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments and I fully expect that this perfect (or, should I say, imperfect) record will not be broken in this comment thread.
As for the blog's name, it should be called "The Zionist Conspiracy" because David Bernstein frequently hijacks it to spread his extremist Zionist propaganda.
I should mention that I was thinking of removing Larry Fafarman's comment, because it struck me as at most marginally on-topic, and tiresomely repetitive of his past comments. But then I saw the closing paragraph, and recognized that it's obviously worth keeping -- it's good to know the sort of fellow Mr. Fafarman is.
But I certain can glean from your remarks that tribalism is alive and well in America, at least among the smug upper crust.
What is to prevent the authors of these law review articles, books, etc. from reading the blog visitors' comments and even citing them?
Being "marginally on-topic" should be good enough because comment sections are called "threads" and not "ramrods" because they supposedly can change direction while maintaining continuity. And there is nothing wrong with repeating the same idea in different threads.
And my comment was definitely on-topic because it raised the issue of why this blog should be authoritatively cited by the NY Times when the bloggers here have no policy against arbitrary censorship of comments.
Also, I noticed that you did not complain that all of the comments about the blog's name are off-topic.
And it is good to know that you are a hypocrite who said he is opposed to arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments and then said he was thinking of arbitrarily censoring my comment here. And my comment was especially on-topic because it showed that this blog does not deserve to be authoritatively cited anywhere, let alone the NY Times.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Would that the media were more liberal. It's the brain dead softleft shibboleths that send me elsewhere for news/commentary/cultural influence. Left = illiberal. Ask them. They'll tell you. That said, my original question contemplated more the man-on-the-street reaction to the blog name than anything regarding the grey-lady-on-her-foundation-board.
I would not be at all displeased to see the Eugene Volokhs of this world inherit some of that cultural influence the Times has forfeited. My question regarded whether the name the new kid has chosen helps or hinders that process.