In Which Glenn Reynolds Pretends To Be Stupid

There is a long and proud literary tradition to play stupid and thereby invite your readers to implicitly draw their own conclusions. Swift, a literary troll of the highest caliber, famously did so once. Glenn Reynolds, a blog troll of a much lower caliber, infamously can't stop himself from doing so over and over again.

ADVICE FOR OBAMA: "Obama Should Embrace His Muslim Heritage." That hasn't been the strategy so far. In fact, that's the complaint

First, the 'advice for Obama' is from the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ, as they will readily admit, do not want Barack Obama to win the presidency. Their columnists are fervently anti-Democrat. Murdoch himself may like Obama's drive, but the actual opinion pages are clearly pro-Republican. Why, Professor Reynolds, would you use the word 'advice' without any apparent irony when everybody knows full well that the WSJ is arguing in bad faith? Is this an attempt to deceive your readers, or are you actually that ignorant?

"[Obama] vociferously denies being a Muslim as if it were a slur."

Secondly, as I'm certain you are by now aware, a very visible portion of the supporters of the party that you have voted for this decade - as a reminder, this is the Republican party of G.W. Bush - are using the word 'Muslim' as a slur, especially when applied to Barack Obama. There is a sizable portion of independents and even Democrats who are uncomfortable with the idea of a Muslim President and would not vote for him. Undoubtedly you have seen the videos of West Virginian voters (and many others) declaring that they do not like Barack Obama because they believe he is a Muslim.

In the face of such anti-Muslim sentiment from what must be a reasonable size of the US populace, please explain how and why you chose to quote a section of the WSJ article arguing that it is Barack Obama who is acting as if it "were a slur." Once again, were you quoting this because you intended to deceive your readers, or were you acting due to sheer ignorance on your part?

[Barack Obama's] sensitivity on this question does suggest that Obama and his supporters think there's something wrong with being a Muslim, which was also the point of the linked article

Professor Reynolds: to play stupid once is forgivable. To play stupid twice is regrettable. Yet to play stupid three times in a single post is a display of what shall henceforth be known as Glenn Reynolds Syndrome: malice concealed as hapless ignorance. Everybody reading your blog post is well-aware that it is not Barack Obama and his supporters who think there's something wrong with being a Muslim, but that it is a considerable number of US voters who have been repeatedly deceived by the 'Obama is a Muslim' emails and whisper campaigns directed in part by the Republican party. A party you have chosen to support in recent years. Barack Obama has been forced to correct malicious and incorrect statements by your political allies.

So thinking about this, is it just out-of-bounds to use the words "Obama" and "Muslim" in the same sentence?

Once again, you are quoting an article attacking the very fact that Barack Obama is defending himself against slurs, which in and of itself is criticizing that Barack Obama is doing so. Not that he is being smeared - but that he defends himself. And then you have the temerity to nod sadly at how Barack Obama's campaign and supporters are defending themselves.

Does that join the ever-lengthening list of things we're not allowed to talk about?

At this point, Mr. Reynolds, any honorifics and titles you may have earned in the past have become meaningless. It is abundantly clear that you are - what is colloquially known - trolling. It would be entertaining if it weren't done so poorly. In many ways, despite your seniority in the Republican-supporting blogosphere, you have become a pale imitation of Pamela Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" blog, an online version of the original Idiotarian, Pat Robertson.

Nonetheless, let's try to answer your rhetorical question in earnest, with more seriousness and calm than your unserious and pathetic attempt at anger from the 'netroots' actually deserves:

No, Glenn. It doesn't "join" any list you're "not allowed to talk about." Given the daily installments - feel free to verify the frequency yourself - of your anti-Obama posts, no reasoned observer of the US political scene still considers you anything else but an unserious hack catering to Republicans desiring to read a slihgtly more sophisticated Freerepublic.