November 27, 2006

Resisting...

I am resisting getting drawn into intrablogospherical squabbles. I hope you appreciate it!

After that long, sole post this morning, I feel I would be doing my regular readers a disservice if I posted what I just composed in my head, which is a response to a couple of very conspicuous taunts that are out there today.

But you taunters -- you know who you are! -- be advised: I could taunt you right back so hard it wouldn't even be funny.

But I want to be funny. I need something frothy and amusing to talk about. Oh, here's a quote. Let's just call it my "Quote of the Day.".. if you know what I mean.... Andrew???.... Anyway, no intrablogospherical squabbling! Really! I mean it. I don't want squabbling! I want amusement! Here's the quote:
The other day I got out my can opener and was opening a can of worms when I thought, "What am I doing?!" --- Jack Handey, "Deepest Thoughts."

31 comments:

Mike said...

You can always try: "Go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"

Dawn Braun said...

or, in your best Pythonese,

"Ah fart een your general deerection"

SteveR said...

Anybody still eating leftovers?

El Presidente said...

Admirable restraint.

AllenS said...

Ann, and I say this as a term of endearment, you will always be Our Favorite Professor Smartypants! Don't ever let the bastards get you down.

Pogo said...

I'd prefer misanthropy, but the team sports are a drag.

kettle said...

For some reason, this reminded me of the Harry Caray skit - Space the Infinite Frontier
Harry Caray

Which just happens to be loaded onto youtube. Hilariousness!

AllenS said...

The other day I got out my can opener and was opening a can of worms when I thought, "What am I doing, I had worms yesterday?!" ---AllenS, commenter.

WV: iejzfs
Meaning: The sound a worm makes when you bite into one.

Garage Mahal said...

Ann is resisting "getting drawn in" to squabbles.

After starting them.

Too Many Jims said...

Ann,

Thanks.

Though I do find it a bit ironic (in the Alanis Morisette sense of that word) that you would choose to quote an Al Franken character in this post.

Alan said...

"...be advised: I could taunt you right back so hard it wouldn't even be funny."

Well I'd probably laugh. I like watching online wars.

Ann Althouse said...

Jack Handey isn't an Al Franken character.

Ann Althouse said...

alan: Yeah, well, it might be really funny for us, but not for them! Oh, how they would writhe! If I thought there was a lot of support from my regular readers for taunting by me, I would "dish" up more, but with only one long taunt-y post up today, I was thinking otherwise...

Verification word: "cahpoa"... a small kaboom.

lucas m. said...

I respect you staying out of the blogospheric dogfights, but if you go in, go in with all guns blazing. To watch somone who has has your background in debate (from the law degree) it might be fun to see such a one sided beatdown...Put me in for two tickets, ringside.

lucas m said...

And he was being pretty uncivil, even for the blogosphere....

johnstodderinexile said...

Is this a good place to defend centrism? In the last thread, a couple of commenters screamed "grow a set!" to a Moderate Voice commenter who titled his site Donkeyphant.

This is idiotic. The Democratic and Republican parties are not European-style ideological or class-based parties. Both are primarily supported (financially) by corporations. Especially the Dems. What makes someone a Democrat nowadays? Strictly their willingness to work for the election of other Democrats. Republicans are somewhat more ideological of late -- heirs to Milton Friedman -- but in practice, they don't practice what they preach.

To me, the bigger "sets" belong to those who apply an independent perspective to the issues of the day, and support positions rather than parties or candidates. It takes no balls to be a party hack parroting the talking points. To be at the center means you're always sleeping outside the tent and getting shot at by both sides.

Granted, the explanation at the end of the last thread by a Moderate Voice writer to the effect that, well, of course we'd be leaning left, because we reflect what the electorate did -- that's pretty wimpy. A true centrist believes what he/she believes, and waits for one or the other party to wise up.

California Dog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Little Thom said...

You went after Shaun for calling you names? After this:

AND: Glenn Greenwald is such an idiot. Am I supposed to respond to this foolishness? Glenn, you moron...

Ann Althouse said...

Little Thom: Did you see what I was responding to? You're damned right I did. His post demonstrated him to be despicably dishonest toward me, and I have the right to defend myself without having to stand on ceremony.

Anyway, I didn't "go after" Shaun for calling me names. I called him out for posting a photograph, and then he basically flipped out. Criticizing him for that, I knocked him for using a sexist diminutive toward me. Damned right. What's your point?

I support civil discourse, but I don't have to lie back and take abuse. Most of it I ignore, but when I choose to fight, I only fight with one hand behind my back if it amuses me.

Simon said...

johnstodderinexile said...
"What makes someone a Democrat nowadays?"

Being against the war, apparently. At least, not being against the war disqualifies one from being a Democrat, as the left's treatment of Lieberman and Althouse exemplify, so presumably the converse holds true, too.

I also think you're off your rocker if you don't think that the political parties in this country are ideological. They may be big tents containing several diverse and occaisionally grating views, but I think both parties are underpinned by certain views and assumptions about society.

Little Thom said...

You know exactly what my point is. Are you honestly using the "it's okay if I do it" defense?

Here's what Greenwald quoted from you, and what he responded to regarding your apparent hypocrisy in light of your past "Islamists" use:

I wonder how many people "recoil" at [Andrew] Sullivan's sanctimonious pronouncements about "Christianists." He's become so devoted to that word of his. Does he not notice how snide and hostile it feels even to people who are not fundamentalists?

You're going to now say, again, that that paragraph was all about Mormons and wasn't about the word "Christianist" in and of itself? And then you want people to take you seriously? Here's your response to Greenwald, right after your "justified because you did it" namecalling:

I don't object to the word "Christianists" if it is used fairly to refer to something that is the equivalent of "Islamists."

Put the two together:

I wonder how many people "recoil" at [Andrew] Sullivan's sanctimonious pronouncements about "Christianists." He's become so devoted to that word of his. Does he not notice how snide and hostile it feels even to people who are not fundamentalists? I don't object to the word "Christianists" if it is used fairly to refer to something that is the equivalent of "Islamists."

I won't call you an idiot or a moron, but your initail argument and the "namecalling" charge and the defense now of your own behavior...they're just messed up.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Althouse:

Idiot, moron, slimeball. Does a law professor use these terms? "Damn right..."

Seems to me more like you are sinking to their level. What about just being the adult in the dispute? After all, this is just a blog, for god's sake. The two Glenns and you - you're all lawyers! I'd think you'd be able to rise above the name-calling.

Remember this?
"I'm talking about those of us who are inspired by this writing format, who find ourselves drawn into new ways of thinking and communicating with the world."

Seems to me you resorted to the oldest and easiest way to make your point.

"But surely they are entitled to look at it as evidence of the quality of the blogger's mind."

To me, resorting to namecalling is indeed a sign of a writer's mind, and maturity level.

I was hoping that as a law prof, you'd be able to bring the tone up a notch, not down, as soon as you found yourself sufficiently self-righteous.

"I support civil discourse, but I don't have to lie back and take abuse. Most of it I ignore, but when I choose to fight, I only fight with one hand behind my back if it amuses me."

So when you fight, how low will you go? Now that you think that a good 'fight' requires using words like slimeball, idiot, moron - are there any words you won't use? What is too low for you? Your answer interests me.

Or if this person committed some graver sin - what other words would you use, ones even stronger?

I read the blogs everyday and see self-righteous pettiness and vitriol. A blog written by someone supposedly disciplined at being fair, sober, restrained - not here.

It's interesting - you actually think that saying 'idiot,' etc - makes your 'fighting' more effective. Maybe if your other readers are kids.

GPE said...

Dear God! Not taunting! Can't we all just get along? What's next? Water boarding or, God forbid, the comfy chair?

Geesh. 20-something partay repartee doesn't even count as a writing style let alone cogent discourse. Move along, folks. Nothing to see her. The Alt-thorities have it under control. Move along, now.

AJ Lynch said...

John In Doddersville said:
"Is this a good place to defend centrism? In the last thread, a couple of commenters screamed "grow a set!" to a Moderate Voice commenter who titled his site Donkeyphant."

John- that was me and I challenge you to visit that "moderate" website "donkelphant" and find the elephant viewpoint. That's all I was saying- I like truth in advertising - there is enough crap in the real world - why do I need to pretend something is moderate or progressive when it ain't IMHO. Just because that is what they have labelled it? Bull!

Verification word = scysit (it's like the thermos, how does it know?)

AJ Lynch said...

Let the taunting begin Ann- just please don't sling too many at me.

LoafingOaf said...

I don't understand why Greenwald fans always act like they're unaware of what Greenwald regularly engages in. That wasn't the first attack he made on Althouse, and in general he has a long track record of being a propagandistic smear artist and liar to lots of people. (The sock puppetry also reveals a lot about his character, and all his fans feign ignorance about that too.)

When Greenwald was smeating Patterico and Patterico's guest blogger (who's crime was getting to see "Path to 9/11" in advance, thus causing Greenwald to try and dig up dirt from his personal life), it was clear to me that his sycophants will abide any scummy tactic from their hero. We know what Greenwald is about. Don't play dumb about it. You're not fooling anybody. He deserves far worse words than he's gotten. He's a shameless liar and smear artist.

Anonymous said...

Johnstodderinexile: "To me, the bigger 'sets' belong to those who apply an independent perspective to the issues of the day, and support positions rather than parties or candidates. It takes no balls to be a party hack parroting the talking points."

Amen. Sometimes it's pretty hard to be conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and indifferent to still more. Partisans will knock you for not agreeing with them at all times, and then disdain you for occasionally not caring.

Mack said...

"What makes someone a Democrat nowadays?"

Being against the war, apparently. At least, not being against the war disqualifies one from being a Democrat, as the left's treatment of Lieberman and Althouse exemplify, so presumably the converse holds true, too.


Well, that's a crock. The reason Dems don't like Lieberman or Althouse is that they both endorse questionable rhetoric that undermines the party. You can support the war and be a Democrat, but you'll have a hard time calling them a bunch of sissy boys and girls and remain popular.

Of course, beyond the rhetoric, being "for" or "against" the war is largely meaningless. On the question of timetables, there is no clear Republican/Democratic split.

I'm a Democrat because I don't like theocracy, I think the government has a responsibility to poor people and particularly poor children, I think everybody should have health care, I think Bush's tax cuts are intellectually bankrupt, and I think the US has a responsibility regarding the environment and should be a leader on environmental issues. Whether I support nation building in the Middle East has nothing to do with it. Incidentally, I've noticed that many Republicans who oppose the war are much more tactful than Lieberman about keeping their mouths shut.

AJ Lynch said...

Mackan stated:

"I'm a Democrat because I don't like theocracy, I think the government has a responsibility to poor people and particularly poor children, I think everybody should have health care, I think Bush's tax cuts are intellectually bankrupt, and I think the US has a responsibility regarding the environment and should be a leader on environmental issues."

I am a republican (fallen catholic) and don't have any fears that we are about to become a theocracy (where is your overriding evidence??.

I believe the govt does provide substantial benefit programs to the poor (I wish more of the programs were direct cash benefits to the needy and not administered thru big, fat bureacracies).

I estimate fewer than 12-15 million CITIZENS can not afford or don't get health insurance at work. And it is a fact that a good percentage of those just elect to spend their money on something else besides health insurance premiums.

I believe the tax cuts were largely responsible for turning the economy around after 911 and the deficit is getting smaller and smaller (and generally deficits are less important or announced when Dems are in the majority). I also don't believe tax cuts "per se" can be intelletually bankrupt and if the govt is so worthy of more of our money, how much have you donated freely to it Mackan? I don't need a precise amount, an estimate will do.

I don't believe there is much we can do about global warming (if it truly occurring) so I don't support the various chicken little's running around.

I think social security must be fixed and it is an especially egregious disgrace if you are 25 years old and must look forward to paying in about $350,000 over the next 40 years and you are also expected to fund other retirement vehicles like an IRA because your social security benefit will be miniscule vs. what you paid in. And the party that taps this sleeping giant mass of currently screwed voters will reign for years!.

I am for term limits, reducing the size of government, encouraging every state to contribute a fixed amount per student to every school district (I believe the right amount is about $5,000).

I supported the Iraq War because our govt believed we were at risk to be struck by WMD because evidence said Iraq had WMD and Saddam was a no good evil son of a bitch. I am very disappointed and saddened that the war has been so deadly and costly to our troops and their families. But I recognize wars are by nature highly unpredictable and we are dealing with a very treacherous group of people in Iraq.

I am against voters having the option of voting the straight party ticket by pulling one lever in the polling booth. Let each and very candidate earn your vote- does the constitution state we should make it easier for major party candidates to get votes? I am in favor of being given a choice to vote for "none of the above" when I vote. We should strive to reduce the power and influence of all political parties (not one or the other) and we should be more eager to battle for our ideas and dreams instead.

I would encourage govt to enact regulations so that pensions for govt workers/ politicians are far less generous than those earned by our military or law enforcement officials.

I am in favor of school choice and giving public schools the ability to kick out of school for one year any unruly students (let their parents or social workers take over). It's not the school's job.

That is what I am for and believe in, and for now, that means I usually vote republican. And FYI- I voted for Carter/ Mondale/ Dukakis/ another Dem / and Clinton (only in 1992). I may have them in the wrong order.

LoafingOaf said...

I'm a Democrat because I don't like theocracy

What theocracy is that? The one in your imagination? I sure don't live in a theocracy. Am I just lucky in Ohio to be spared the theocracy the rest of the country is supposedly suffering under?

I think the government has a responsibility to poor people and particularly poor children, I think everybody should have health care

Lots of people care about the poor and want a good health care system. There's big disagreements about how to help the poor and what a good health care system should be like. Democrats always try and act like they have a monopoly on caring about the poor and health care, when they simply support different solutions to problems people who have different proposals about also care about. Democrats pretty much concede, today, that they were wrong about welfare reform. Ten years ago they would've screamed at you that you "hate the poor" if you support welfare reform.

Today they say we need to keep raising the minimum wage. In my opinion this will cause higher unemployment. If I'm wrong, then I apologize and recognize I'm not an economic expoert. But I take my position out of sincere concern for the poor, whereas a lot of Democrats seem to mostly be concerned about what Trade Unions want. Similarly, I don't care for Democrats who attack Wal-Mart and exported goods from China, as I believe that means they oppose lower prices on goods for poor Americans. It's not correct to suggest I don't care about the poor. I take my cues from some of the top economics minds in the world, and if I'm wrong it's in good faith!

And if Democrats care so much about the poor, why do so many of them oppose free trade and globalization, which lifts the most poor of the world out of the most desperate povert more than anything else has ever done in all of human history? I find that just about the most immoral position a person can take in this day and age, yet a whole bunch of Democrats just got elected under economic nationalist/protectionist promises. (I've seen some people praising the new centrists in the Democratic Party, yet they are centrists by opposing sensible economic policy while supporting opposition to gay marriage and immigration. The centrists I like are the opposite on all those issues!)

I think Bush's tax cuts are intellectually bankrupt

If the tax cuts were so "intellectually bankrupt, how come the 2004 Nobel prize winner in Economics, Edward Prescott, said the problem with the cuts were that they weren't large enough?

"What Bush has done has been not very big, it's pretty small," Prescott told CNBC financial news television.

"Tax rates were not cut enough," he said.

Lower tax rates provided an incentive to work, Prescott said.

Prescott and Norwegian Finn Kydland won the 2004 Nobel Economics Prize for research into the forces behind business cycles.


Is Prescott intellectually bankrupt? Or is there a case to be made in favor of tax cuts that you'll have to address beyond calling proponents "bankrupt"? Was the U.S. economy not lifted out of recession since the tax cuts took effect? How do you account for that?

I think the US has a responsibility regarding the environment and should be a leader on environmental issues

Which means what? Will you agree that we should be building new-generation nuclear power plants?

Whether I support nation building in the Middle East has nothing to do with it.

What, precisely, was the policy towards Iraq you supported in 2002? My position was that we had been wrong for generations to support evil in Iraq and it was high time we started supporting demcoracy, that cease-fire agreements should be enforced, and how sad it was that it took 9/11 to start to recognize that.

Donald Douglas said...

But "intrablogospherical squabbles" are one of the highlights of this page -- remember "comments, comments, comments"?

Burkean Reflections