A few days ago I pointed out a goofy liberal blogger (Lloyd Snooks, AKA cvllelaw) here in Virginia who is so intellectually challenged he is often reduced to plagiarizing Wikipedia. The truly sad part of this is that he is actually a member of the Virginia bar. (No Virginia, that does not necessarily mean he's a drunkard, even though there's nothing in his writing to suggest otherwise. The Virginia bar is the official association of attorneys licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia.)
It seems that, since I exposed him here on these pages, Lloyd has been much more diligent about citing his sources. That is a good thing. I'm proud of you Lloyd, you were on your way to being a legitimate Virginia blogger.
What? I said "were on your way..."? Yes, that was not a typo.
Lloyd, it seems is completely infatuated with Wikipedia. Let's set aside for the moment that Wikipedia is hopelessly biased toward the left. Even Stephen Colbert and The Onion have mocked its obvious leftist bias, and the facts are well known that the site's top administrators have conspired to limit input. No, we'll let those accusations ride for now.
What Lloyd has done now is even sillier than plagiarizing Wikipedia. In his post that purports to prove that the term "anchor babies" is racially derogatory, he cites a Wikipedia entry to support his argument. What he does not tell you is that the Wikipedia entry, even in the extreme liberal world of Wikipedia, carries a header telling its readers that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" and "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed."
But wait! There's an even better angle here. The portion of that disputed article that Lloyd links to is authored by.... cvillelaw.
Now tell me, how can anyone, anywhere, ever again trust anything Lloyd writes?