Someone I used to know, Thomas DiLorenzo, who has in the meantime taken to writing error-filled books (“a travesty of historical method and documentation“) on statist American presidents, has given us a little insight into his scholarly standards again. He wrote yesterday:
November 22, 2007
Good Reason for Libertarians to Not Support Fred Thompson
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at November 22, 2007 04:02 PM
He’s the preferred candidate of the STATO Institute. (Ted Galen Carpenter claims he’s “the only limited government conservative” running for the Republican nomination).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017104.html
Evidently he saw that Ted Galen Carpenter had written a column on Thompson
and, true to form, didn’t bother to read it. He would have found the conclusion:
Thompson’s defense proposal is a case study in faulty thinking about important security issues. Throwing money at the Pentagon, complacently accepting a host of obsolete commitments to free-riding allies and embracing the folly of nation building is not what the next administration needs to do.
(Now there’s a ringing endorsement!)
Today, the blog entry was changed to:
Good Reason for Libertarians to Not Support Fred Thompson
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at 04:02 PM
He’s the preferred candidate of the STATO Institute. (In the Oct. 19 issue of FreeMarketNews.com Michael Tanner claimed he’s positioning himself as “the only limited government conservative” running for the Republican nomination).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017104.html
The little change (someone must have actually read the Carpenter essay) then refers to this on the FreeMarketNews.com site, which also does not say what DiLorenzo says it says.
This is just too good to be true. DiLorenzo is obviously parodying himself! Either that or he doesn’t limit his “travesty of historical method and documentation” just to events in the nineteenth century. But at least it would show methodical consistency….why actually “read” or “check” anything when it’s such a bother?