"The worst piece of journalism I have ever read."

Notwithstanding its triumph of puerility ...

This is the worst piece of journalism I have ever read. Putting aside any criticism of the NAACP, some of which may very well be valid, to throw around allegations of Marxism, allegiances to Mao and to link Democrats to genocide is inflammatory, irresponsible (both professionally and personally) and insulting. The post only proves the NAACP's point as it reeks of McCarthyism and worse. I appreciate hearing from both sides on an issue but the Journal Sentinel would do better if they replaced this columnist with any other living person in the world. — nicholas53202, on the "award-winning" P. McIlheran

When exactly did newspaper columnists become internet trolls?

Dendrochronologist McIlheran busted, skewered

Never mind McIlheran's woebegone spluttering (although it's good for a laugh if you'd been following the nut-right's "Climategate" scam — McIlheran disgorged its swill for weeks) and go to the comments.

What's the most disappointing about this post, though, is this squirming excuse that you were mostly just "linking" to ill-founded opinions — as if hyperlinks to the Telegraph and Daily Mail just drop themselves into your blog. I think your unnamed nemesis can be excused for thinking that you share the same antipathy for scientists as your compadres, when you so clearly enjoy stitching their screeds into equally mocking, belittling and endlessly sarcastic entries of your own.

Nailed it.

Ugh. Even now, the zombie lies keep resurfacing. (How long did it take you, Patrick, to admit that "hide the decline" did not mean "cover up a decline in temperatures," as you claimed in print?)

I recall it was rather a long time.

But it's that the "award-winning" McIlheran wasn't able to admit it because he didn't know what the hell any of it meant. And even when he did figure it out, he just went soldiering forward, in spite of the "hide the decline" thing being all they had. Got to keep the Bradleys and the Heartland Institute pleased, I guess, that's the main thing.

eta: gmta.

Wisconsin Civ Pro* with your host P. McIlheran

In the State of Wisconsin, a trial by jury is "wholly unprecedented" where a defendant is unsuccessful in obtaining summary judgment, advises the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's top legal analyst Patrick McIlheran. (Yes, Mr. McIlheran actually works for a real newspaper, which just might be the longest running comedy routine in town.)

To be fair, McIlheran's risible cluelessness is not germane to his "point," which is that local activist Mike McCabe's pronouncements are often consistent with liberal objectives. No shite, Sherlock.

* Civil procedure: A motion for summary judgment is filed by a party in a lawsuit in order to avoid going to trial, arguing that there is no "genuine issue" of fact that would require the impaneling of a jury to determine. If the movant fails to win his motion — and in the present case the movant is Michael Gableman, who failed to win his motion — then the case continues toward trial. What truly would be "wholly unprecedented" is the award-winning Patrick McIlheran delivering either an informed or an intelligent comment about the legal system.

No word yet on the Journal-Sentinel moving P. McIlheran's column to the entertainment section, which would be wholly precedented.

What the ?

"Right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran "replies" to his love letter:

Proof, Mr. Tenant: Try presenting some proof. That was McBride's point (and mine in pointing my readers toward her post) -- that the evidence suggests Butler is, um, prevaricating about his record. He's saying he's a tuff-on-the-crooks guy, and the numbers, embarrassingly for him, do not back him up.

Go on, disprove the numbers. No, you can't? All you can do is toss around a lot of tantruming about how you think I should be silenced and it hasn't happened yet? Ah, well. Tells me what I need to know about you.

What in the world is McIlheran jabbering about? He wants proof and disproof? Disprove what numbers? He should be silenced? "Tantruming"? What?

Did he even address anything I wrote?

And why is it that McIlheran's blog seems to recognize the most rudimentary of HTML code, but my comment turns up as a textually unintelligible dog's breakfast? He likely knew it would appear like that. His blog software cuts out entire words from sentences. Nice.

I don't know which is worse, him having no idea what I'm talking about or him not knowing what the hell he's talking about. Both propositions seem equally true, that much is clear enough.

In any event, the burden is on the said "right-wing guy" to prove Justice Butler is lying. Good luck with that, Paddy Mac.