Oppressed by the label "Republican"?
Dr. Helen is showing solidarity.
One of the things that I observe, by the way, is how this attitude I take -- whatever it is -- drives the left blogosphere up the wall. I wonder why it takes so little? And why this special obsession with me? Some blogger wrote about me -- I linked to him yesterday... he's not getting another -- "She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero." Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements intended to taunt people into attacking her. That's her game. I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?
How many times do you hear someone apologizing for having right leaning views -- "Oh, no, I am not really a Republican, I have other views etc." My question is, what if one is a Republican or right leaning. So what? Is that a crime?She's also disagreeing with me disagreeing with Tom DeLay who said that the blogosphere needs more right-wing attack dogs. (I'm paraphrasing!)
Sadly, I used to agree with views like Althouse's but I am beginning to see that while it is admirable to hold facts and substance above attacking one's opponents views, it doesn't work.My view, you remember from yesterday, is that vicious and nasty lefty bloggers should be bested with better substance and smarter rhetoric. But Dr. Helen has a point. For example, I've noticed that arch ambiguities, terse sarcasm, and mischievous fun-poking confuses a lot of people. But I'm not going to change. I'm not in this to persuade people to agree with me. I write for the sake of writing and observe because I am alive... up here in my lonely outpost in Madison, Wisconsin.
One of the things that I observe, by the way, is how this attitude I take -- whatever it is -- drives the left blogosphere up the wall. I wonder why it takes so little? And why this special obsession with me? Some blogger wrote about me -- I linked to him yesterday... he's not getting another -- "She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero." Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements intended to taunt people into attacking her. That's her game. I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?
Labels: Ann Coulter
posted by Ann Althouse at 6:33 AM
187 Comments:
What's it about?
A desire to cow you into submission to their natural authority.
But you reject the extreme and choose a middle path. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, they will spit you out of their mouth. You know, like Jesus. (Very much like Jesus, except, not all religiony or anything, but the socialist and shepherdy part.)
Therefore, they are right, you are wrong. They are good, you are evil. You were once of the faith, now you are an infidel, and one who knows their playbook. Damn Althouse to, um, some bad place we don't believe in!
Simple.
'Althouse' is the most enjoyable of my top three blogs because it's just like travelling across Canada by rail thirty years ago -- wonderful, intriguing, baffling, and stimulating conversations all inter-woven.
Friendly conductor to keep things from getting out of hand. Unexpected stops in the middle of nowhere to let somebody on or off. Lively, sharp, but generally civil political debates. Little communities coalescing for however much of the journey we're on together.
That sort of intensely rewarding, deeply human interaction is all too rare these days, but it's common fare here on 'Althouse,' and deeply appreciated for that in itself.
[I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?]
The blog that launched a thousand ships and all . . . .
Hey, Bart, check the banner at the top of the page.
As reader_iam wrote on another thread: "Envy."
The "crushing" incident is an excellent example of how something that would be quite obvious in conversation can be misinterpreted when printed. True, some choose to intentionally misinterpret comments like that, while others miss the humor because they are humorless or arrive looking for fighting words.
It seems to me that a lot of these people want your approval, attention, and/or your audience. It reminds when someone once famously claimed "We've got Althouse" for their start-up and you said "No, you don't."
"One of the things that I observe, by the way, is how this attitude I take -- whatever it is -- drives the left blogosphere up the wall. I wonder why it takes so little? And why this special obsession with me?"
You have some inherent modesty backed with very keen insight and practicality and you don't trumpet said virtues. Take for example the Post on your 7th million viewer. There was no smug, coy back patting on your part. That will give anyone some enemies in this day and age. Secondly, given your intelligence, it gnaws at the Left that you don't totally buy into their agenda and ideology. They are supposed to have the monopoly on intelligence, insight and solutions you know. I christen thee Annathon Livingston Seagull.
I'm no dummy and I make my rounds and I will say it again: you sport the sharpest pencils in the bin for commentators and some of the best wags I've seen in many a year.
As I've mentioned before, your Leftist Trolls have neither a sense of civility or humor. They come onto your site and blasxt you for not corresponding to their views. I used to be a Democrat until 1992 when I saw the germination of anti-semitism start to grow inside the party (and this was in NYC). Out here in the Entertainment field, one must be careful what you say or you will literally be spit upon. I await the time I meet an open minded Democrat. They don't show up here.
Althouse: Regarding Bart's quote, if you hadn't done it, I was going to suggest it.
Internet Ronin: Actually, that was Amba. But anytime ANYONE wants to confuse me with blogfriend and true gem Annie, I'll just consider it a compliment, be grateful, and move right along... .
pogo is correct. It has been said many times, but it's true--Leftism(I no longer call it liberalism as so much of what the Left, or "progressives" believe these days is illiberal)is a secular religion. They can't tolerate any disagreement with the Faith. In religious cults, no one is more despised than a former believer who has left the fold. It's been striking to me how the recent Democratic victories haven't resulted in any lessening of the seething anger so evident on lefty blogs. Too many of them seem more interested in retribution than they do in any positive or constructive action. Their credo seems to be, "Crush the enemy," not "Lead the country." In some circles, to claim to be a Conservative is akin to claiming Devout Atheism at a Fundamentalist Revival.
"She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero." Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements intended to taunt people into attacking her.
Though intended as an insult, I'm not sure you should take it as one. As usual the lefties don't know their history very well.
I have read more Cicero (in the original) than Althouse. He was detested by his opponents on account of his sharp pen, repeated and often outrageous digs, and generally forceful stands on behalf of liberty.
In the end he was murdered by his adversaries because they couldn't make him shut up any other way and he consistently shone them, in a bad light, for what they were. Tyrants.
If Coulter had a Senate seat the comparison to Cicero would be even more apt.
Ann -
You are simply being treated as a presumed apostate by the left.
Well, it looks like you are having fun with this blog-thingy. People hate that. It's serious business, you know.
*Bart's comment is cool.
I have read more Cicero (in the original) than Althouse.
OOPS. I meant to say "than Coulter"
Please fix that, lest some leftie think that now I'm insulting you.
Bart - Pure poetry, the whole thing. Beautifully written.
(Aside to Reader: Oops! Oh well, I'll give amba credit next time I quote you ;)
I'm a conservative; probably more conservative than 75 percent of the country and certainly more so than our hostess. I think that politics and ideology, while important to conservative activists, are critical to the Left. The notion that "the personal is political" really has no currency on the Right while the expression itself comes from the Left. I think the primary reason for this is that for the mostly secular Left, its varied movements are not only their religion, but the lenses through which most parts of life and the world are viewed. But your carefully considered agnosticism or scepticism makes you apostate; additionally, your demographic markers suggest to them you should be firmly planted in their camp. In many respects, they find you antagonizing the same way they find Glenn Reynolds antagonizing - like Jesuits, they really think once they had you, they had the right to keep you, and your faithlessness is your failure, not theirs.
It's an imperfect analysis; but I do think the Left and Right sides of the blogosphere really are different, and not just ideologically.
And I voted for you again this morning... everyone should.
Ann Coulter doesn't claim to be more Democratic than thou.
Ann Coulter doesn't claim to be moderate and ask people to vote for her as a moderate.
Ann Coulter is a lot more honest than you.
How do you rationalize intellectually that people should be culturally and economically equal. You can't... the only argument for equality is that it "feels good" or "seems right." Therefore, the only way to argue for programs to support equality, is to accuse your opponents of being bad and evil for being against programs that support equality, which is what the Left does over and over and over. They say Republicans hate the poor, Republicans hate the children, they hate the hispanics, they hate women, they hate anyone who feels oppressed (which is everyone).
It gets tiring.
I saw a piece awhile back, on Jim Lehrer's Newshour of all places, of how average, run-of-the mill conservatives (not the one's who would be posting and arguing on blogs) are reluctant to voice their views in public. They went around to a few picnics and family gatherings in rural America and interviewed people. The interviewer noted that people tended to lower their voice and seem a bit ashamed when they answered the interviewers questions with a "conservative" answer. The explanation put forth was that these people were expressing views which were at odds with what they hear everyday from the media. So, even though they sincerely held these views, they had this feeling that there was something "wrong" with them.
Sloanasaurus:
I think some of the lesser people object to Republican policies that place the lesser people at a disadvantage for whatever reason.
Many merely want a level playing field -- less built-in systemic advantages for the Republican demographic.
Maybe if you could work toward making that a reality, you'd hear less calls for regulation, constitutional lawsuits, or reparations.
Ann said...
"[T]his attitude I take -- whatever it is -- drives the left blogosphere up the wall. I wonder why it takes so little? And why this special obsession with me?"
Perhaps its for the same reason that they reserve special cases of tar and feathers for black Republicans: they think they're entitled to you. You're a professor. A law professor, even, the very vanguard of the left, in their eyes. You're in academia -- you live in Madison, WI, for pete's sake. How can you not be a Democrat?! You're supposed to be a Democrat. How dare you -- a law professor! -- be anywhere to the right of Walter Mondale? That is, I think you attract particularly vociferous hostility from them because they can't believe that you, a law professor, who should be on their team, have the nerve to think for yourself.
I suppose the alternative hypothesis is that the left believes that Republicans are stupid, ugly, retrograde, inarticulate, illiterate chumps. It challenges their sense of reality to find someone who is none of those things yet is still not a democrat. Have you read Groupthink by Irving Janis
Might make Republicans a bit more competitive too.
From Mrs. Perfesser: Many times, people mistakenly call me a Republican although I am a right-leaning libertarian.
Yes, because there are so many libertarians that think what is happening to Padilla and habeas is so peachy keen and just in line with libertarian points of view.
Mr and Mrs Perfesser run away from the Republican label and smear the libertarians by claiming allegiance.
And Mrs Perfesser and Mrs Althouse wonder why people call them conservatives, and republicans.
You claim victimhood but in reality it is your own falsehoods and your own behavior that people are bringing back to you.
If you were intellectually honest and intellectually consistent, people would respond to you as serious, partisan yes, but serious.
As you play it, you are just an Internet joke.
It's really sad for you.
Derve said...
"I think some of the lesser people object to Republican policies that place the lesser people at a disadvantage for whatever reason. Many merely want a level playing field"
So, you're abandoning affirmative action as a cause celebre, then? This renewed commitment to the level playing field has been absent from the democratic lexicon for quite some time -- didn't you get the memo?
I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?
I could take this little line so many places, but fear anywhere I go with it, Simon will follow and accuse me of un-sportsman-like conduct. I guess I'll just sit here in my VW van with my 8-track deck and my cool jug of hard cider and
[Remainder of post censored by the blog administrator.]
Mike,
The converse of that for me is anytime politics comes up in conversation, it always comes from my liberal/Left friends (or my wife's) and almost never from our conservative friends. And it is always so freaking emotional. It is as if liberals and the Left have this uncontrollable urge to argue politics. It is so tiresome; I never bring up politics in social conversations simply because I don't want to argue with someone for three hours as to how they wish the world was...
Anyone missing a pair of socks this morning?
Reality Check: "Mrs Althouse"
I love the way lefties forget not to be sexist when they are talking about someone they perceive to be on the right.
Reality Check -
"there are so many libertarians that think what is happening to Padilla and habeas is so peachy keen and just in line with libertarian points of view."
You recall, of course, that Althouse was in favor of granting cert in Padilla ("I agree with Justice Ginsburg that the case falls within the "voluntary cessation" exception to the mootness doctrine") (a position that I found myself stunned to agree with too), and has previously lamented that "[t]he academy's strange remove from risky, dangerous human life should unsettle us ... ... [the] injuries that befall the characters in the cases we read. They are not fictional characters, though as we read about them we sit in the same comfy chairs we sit in when we read novels. They genuinely suffer and frequently die, slipping through the fictional web of doctrine upon which we train our eyes," Late Night Confessions in the Hart & Wechsler Hotel, 47 Vand. L. Rev. 993, 1003 (1994)? But you knew that, right? Because I know you wouldn't just make wild, baseless accusations on a topic you know nothing about - right?
" think some of the lesser people object to Republican policies that place the lesser people at a disadvantage for whatever reason."
There are no "lesser people." Some are less advantaged, or less wealthy, or less powerful, or less healthy, or less endowed, or less intelligent, or less educated, or less capable, so on and so forth; but there are no lesser people. The world is not fair, agreed, but this notion of "lesser people" is offensive as hell.
Tim, It's a religion. You must be converted.
"You're not so smart as you think."
I don't think I'm smart at all, Derve. I leave that stuff to smart people, and throw my tuppeny worth in where it doesn't seem horribly inappropriate. But I do seem to be able to remain on topic, which seems to be a problem for you. Apropos:
"What are your plans -- Republican plans -- to provide better education at the local levels in integrated areas?"
That has nothing to do with affirmative action, but not so smart as I am, I tend to think that Cleveland had the right idea with going to a voucher system, and I would basically support that.
"How 'bout that situation in Iraq? Big talker while the country loses..."
That has nothing to do with affirmative action either, and I'm not going to be lectured by someone who (a) never wanted us to go in the first place and (b) wants us to lose now we're there, thanks. The answer to the question is that most of the problems that have befallen us have resulted from failing to listen to what military commanders on the ground said. The first step is to fire Rumsfeld; the second step is to ask the commanders on the ground what they need to win, and the third step is to give it to them, no matter what domestic spending programs we have to cut to pay for it.
Mort,
I'm the last person in the world to suggest that you shouldn't make any kind of comment, I'm just suggesting that there are boundaries, and that some amount of discretion is appropriate.
So here's what I don't get about Reality Check and his pals.
If I think someone is a disengenuous hypocrite, moron, jerk, etc., I avoid them. I don't go to their home or place of business, and I certainly don't communicate with them on an ongoing basis. My criticism will benefit neither of us.
I come to Althouse several times a day because it is such an intersting bazaar of ideas and stories. The comments, apart from the angry flamethrowers are often funny, and at times brilliant.
I comment here very rarely, but I visit as much as anyone. Why, for the love of God do trolls come here with such vehemence and frequency? Are we all going to be converted to the Church of the Holy Kos? What the hell is the point of going to blogs that drive you crazy? Life is too short and too precious to be wasted on manufactured anger.
Thank you to Ann and to all the regular commenters who make this site fun and informative on a daily basis.
"The first step is to fire Rumsfeld; the second step is to ask the commanders on the ground what they need to win, and the third step is to give it to them, no matter what domestic spending programs we have to cut to pay for it."
And the fourth step is to stop listening to the advice and demands of those who want us to lose in Iraq in the first place, and get busy with winning. Losing in Iraq is nothing but bad. Even for the Derves of the world, whether they realize it or not.
Perhaps there should be a Complete Mort's Comment thread. I've never seen a partial-censor before. Too bad there's not a virtual bleep for such occurrences.
I think that was a joke, Tony.
[BWDIK]
Perhaps there should be a Complete Mort's Comment thread.
Great idea! But I think Ann would have to actually like me (or at least my presence on her blog) for that to happen. I suppose prayer might help.
When I was in DC, there was always a running joke, "Scratch a Democrat and you can find an aristocrat". Judging by Derve's comments, we Republicans are her "lessers" since we didn't go to Law school (or Private School). Democrats don't believe in debate, they want to censor any opinion that is not theirs. How many differing opinions are on Daily Kos, my DD or Firedoglake? Heck, james Wolcot allows no comments or email to him if you disagree. Where is that open mindedness Derve?
Professor Althouse:
I show up because you are an intellectual lightweight who imagines otherwise.
I show up because you are a nasty, petty, vindictive person.
I show up because you are angry and unstable.
I show up because your sycophants are even more pathetic than you are.
Above all, I show up to watch you disassemble. Your lonely Thanksgiving of raking is slouching toward a lonelier Christmas of... what, exactly? Blogging about the intemperate bloggers who bested you when you ran for class president?
Finally, I show up to figure out what time you started drinking on a given day. The answer is, almost always, too early.
You can imagine all you want that you are too clever for the readers who ridicule you. But, at the end of the day, you are an angry, unstable, deeply unhappy, and dizzily stupid person. Your flaws are obvious to anyone who reads you, save the sycophants here who worship you for their own complicated reasons.
Mortimer Brezny said...
"Perhaps there should be a Complete Mort's Comment thread[?] Great idea! But I think Ann would have to actually like me (or at least my presence on her blog) for that to happen."
For what it's worth, I like you, and I appreciate your being here and your contributions - I'm just saying that you might sometimes dial it back just a touch. ;)
Charles,
If that's how you see it -- I think you're way off the mark, but if that's really how you see it -- then you either have the worst case of schadenfreud of any human being alive, or a bigger crush on Ann than every other commenter here put together.
Some of you just can't lighten up, eh?
I, too, want a level-playing field. Unfortunately, I practice in academia. Hahahaha. Don't worry, I make this joke in staff meetings.
And I am kidding! I've had a pretty good deal so far. I've found that as a woman of South Asian descent (key demographical data which should help you all judge all of my future remarks - the demographics, not the content, being key these days), the perks that come with being a registered Republican are awesome! The Rove checks come in handy! (Are those the tax breaks you Republicans care so much about? - Ed. Oh be quiet - Me). Donna Karan store, here I come! Cue evil sounding music. Dum da da dum dum.
This post has been removed by the author.
Simon,
Definitely go with the schadenfreude. Angry, intellectually lightweight, bottle blondes like Coulter and Althouse are so not my type.
"She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero."
Heh! That's completely insane. Who wrote that?
I'm also somewhat amused by the apparent use of Cicero as the "good guy", given that he dealt with threats to the Republic through martial law and the summary execution of conspirators without trial.
Charles, If you enjoy laughing at stupid people, you must have a great time by yourself and I can't imagine that you don't spend a lot of time by yourself.
What's the male equivalent of bottle blonde, eh? Bad toupe? Those irritating long side burns or too much 'product'? Hmmm......
Simon, I believe Charles when he says bottle blondes aren't his type. Ripple bottles might be a different case. Perhaps two.
"Yeah, that's it.
I caused the loss."
Notwithstanding the fact the war in Iraq is not lost, one who purports to be as well informed as you should familiarize yourself with Vo Nguyen Giap and your role in this war.
Our enemies understand this history and use it, and you, to their advantage. You are much more responsible than you think.
Chuck,
"Angry"? Not seen so much anger. Occaisional irritation, sure. Frequent bemusement, certainly. "Anger"?
By the way, when you post your law review articles on the Eleventh Amendment and Federalism, you might be in a position to start calling Ann "intellectually lightweight." I won't hold my breath waiting for your devastating published ripostes to Variations on a Theory of Normative Federalism: A Supreme Court Dialogue, The Alden Trilogy: Still Searching for a Way to Enforce Federalism or Federal Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Federal Rights. In fact, I doubt you've even read them. So you have no credibility to stand here (so to speak) and talk about anyone's intellectual credentials. All you mean is that you don't agree with Ann's politics. Big fucking deal. Someone disagrees with you and that means that they're stupid or drunk? Jeez, how old are you? Made it through middle school yet? I think you'll find that very few commenters, least of all me, completely share her political views, yet we somehow manage to restrain ourselves from the kind of childish behavior you and the other Greenwaldian sock and meat puppets indulge in every visit.
I almost forgot, Chuck - we'll take a look at the Federal Courts casebook that you wrote, for your students, as an alternative to Hart & Wechsler.
Where is it that you're a tenured professor again?
Two days ago she hits 7 million on the ol' site meter and today, just about 18,000 more have stopped by. How about them apples, Charles? I see roughly 582 people have viewed your profile. You're dazzling 'em, baby! And by the way, what in the heck has happened to your own Blog? I couldn't find it....
Finally, I show up to figure out what time you started drinking on a given day. The answer is, almost always, too early.
That post is definately worthy of deletion. It's a disgrace. Althouse has every right to demand a duel.
Simon,
Give me a few minutes to figure out how to translate sycophant into Morse code and I will blink it back to you.
In the meantime, go post another vore for Althouse, intellectual giant, for class president.
Is Charles Giacometti the second coming of Deb Frisch?
PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY NOTICE
Help Keep Our Comunnity Clean & Safe
Please DO NOT feed the trolls.
She has every right to drop-kick the jackass in the groin, and should. Intellectual property of this nature is much like one's home IMHO..... he is 'taking it to the street' under the guise of intellectual dueling
Chuck,
You either have a very peculiar understanding of the word sycophant, or very little familiarity with my posting record...
Just because it's been established that you're allowed to coin neologisms here doesn't mean that you get to assign your own preferred new meaning into existing words, you know.
projection ≠ schadenfreude.
Judging from Derve and Charles Giacometti, the problem with Althouse is that she's not really really serious all of the time.
And her pathetic commenters? We mock your manifestos. Does that mean that we disagree with you? Not necessarily. We just think that arguments are more interesting than agendas.
Process is important.
Politics is a circus.
If you don't care about process and treat politics as eschatology (or self-realization), you're not going to get this blog.
Ooh, I have some...complicated reasons.. for wanting to participate while drinking my coffee, but I won't bore you with them.
I want to make up masthead slogans! This one is so cool:
Althouse: "It's just like traveling across Canada by rail thirty years ago."
Let me try!
Giacometti: "It's just like traveling through the septic system at a leper colony reform school by windowless submarine."
A little wordy, I'll grant you. How about
Althouse: " A pleasant library inside, with the internet's heating grate just outside -- where hypertext troll hobos huddle to sleep off their intellectual dyspepsia and shout deranged epithets at passing cars."
Now, we need to work on a font...
Internet Ronin: I hear NYC is considering a city-wide ban on Troll Feeding.
OT: Speaking of Cisero...the second and last season of HBO's ROME starts in January.
When I read comments like those by Charles Giacometti, I am certain I am reading his bio, his confession, and his secret shame all at once.
I'd be fascinated to know more if I didn't have to read it from him. Anyway, the protesting too muchness is more apparent (and repellant) than Britney's threadbare tootie.
Ann and others,
How do you feel about the 2006 election? Depressed, saddened? I didn't even feel bad on election day! With Alcee Hastings and Reyes who doesn't know a Sunni from a Shiite, and William Jefferson re-elected, I just laugh my ass off. I enjoyed Clinton's presidency because of all the great jokes, and although I relentlessly complained about his foreign policy, I couldn't claim the economy was bad. If Hillary becomes President, the world will not end. Politics is a side show that affects me enough to get me interested, but not enough to dominate my life. (which is why it's easy to toss off Republican politicians) Perhaps it is because I am a conservative: I believe men are flawed and that this world will never be a utopia, and that I am mostly responsible for my own success. There is a barrier between my politics and my life. I think a lot of liberals lack that barrier.
But I can't dial it back, Simon. I mean, every time she makes a throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread it touches off fireworks that go on for days.
"She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero." Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements intended to taunt people into attacking her. That's her game. I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?
Your answer lies right there. The comparison to Coulter wasn't random. Yes, stylistically you are very different from Coulter, but the effects you each have are similar. No, don't set out overtly to taunt them into responding, but they feel taunted and they do respond. You are fortunate that they aren't as vicious in their hatred towards you as they are towards Coulter. Your vintage 1973 sexism-dar would be going off like a Christmas tree if they were. The names they call Coulter and the things they say about her as a woman are beyond vile. But that's the way the left operates.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Above all, I show up to watch you disassemble.
Ann, once you've finished taking apart whatever it is you're taking apart, you should put that line up in the masthead. With attribution.
Oh, stop. Ann is far smarter, far wittier, far more reasonable, and far sexier than Ann Coulter. And not even Simon would say I went too far on that one.
"I'm not in this to persuade people to agree with me."
Sounds like what Scalia said in his recent conversation with Justice Breyer.
I'm not in this to persuade people to agree with me. I write for the sake of writing and observe because I am alive... up here in my lonely outpost in Madison, Wisconsin.
Uh Oh. I can just see the Divine Mrs. Althouse stalking the hallowed halls of U. O. W. singing the "Team America" ditty "I'm So Ronrey".
F*** YEAH!!! :-)
Fatmouse said...
Is Charles Giacometti the second coming of Deb Frisch?
As mental patients go, Frisch was one of a kind, whereas Giacometti is just another of the many obsessive trolls all over the internet who take their miserable lives out on others.
Giacometti is a commenter at the sock puppet's site, btw. I first noticed him months ago on Althouse when he was threatening to call her dean and report her to various other places. He also promised he wouldn't be wasting any more of his time reading this blog. lol
How can you not be a Democrat?! You're supposed to be a Democrat. How dare you -- a law professor! --
Hey Simon, I can trump that! Try being Gay and voting for a Republican!!!
"Try being Gay and voting for a Republican!!!"
Try being gay and attempting to stay friends with people whose political views tend to be as well thought-out as those of Cindy Sheehan. As noted by others, the more mechanical, learned-by-rote Left a person's views, the more likely they are to spout them whenever they have an audience. It's a constant dilemma whether to remain silent and hope the conversation shifts to something more fun, or respond and deal with the shock that anyone dares dissent from liberal orthodoxy.
The great thing about the left is they can't help exposing their nature. As this comment thread illustrates, the best way to defeat the left is just to engage them civilly in argument and watch them commit suicide while attempting homicide.
Simon responded to a query about education with:
"What are your plans -- Republican plans -- to provide better education at the local levels in integrated areas?"
That has nothing to do with affirmative action, but not so smart as I am, I tend to think that Cleveland had the right idea with going to a voucher system, and I would basically support that.
Might I suggest Belgium as an alternate Use Case to present? It is much harder to dismiss as 'Red State Nonsense'.
Is it just me, or does Charles Giacometti come off as wordy, neutered version of Travis Bickle?
Mortimer Brezny said...
"Oh, stop. Ann is far smarter, far wittier, far more reasonable, and far sexier than Ann Coulter. And not even Simon would say I went too far on that one."
No, I think that's about right, although I think you're setting the bar a little low - a bag of cold porridge is "far smarter, far wittier, far more reasonable, and far sexier than Ann Coulter."
Too Many Jims said...
"I'm not in this to persuade people to agree with me ... Sounds like what Scalia said in his recent conversation with Justice Breyer."
Well, hold the phone - that perhaps demands more explication. What Scalia in that discussion (among other interesting things) said was that he doesn't expect to convince his colleagues on the Supreme Court that his methodology is right, nor legal professionals whose views on such matters are entrenched. I don't think he means on a case-by-case basis he doesn't expect to persuade four of his colleagues. And in any event, that doesn't seem particularly controversial; I think we are a little too far along the road to Damascus to expect Justice Ginsburg to undergo a blinding conversion to Originalism.
I think Scalia expects to convince his non-originalist colleagues -- that is, everyone else on the court except Justice Thomas and possibly Justice Alito (although that remains to be seen) -- whenever his methodology leads to a result that they agree with.
This is all so sad. I'm a dual US-Canada citizen (US born), and whilst I left Canada some 15 years ago because of the outrageous tax burden and atrocious health care system, there's one thing I really miss.
My best friends in Quebec (where I lived for thirteen years) were 180-degrees opposed to me politically. Our disagreements became the foundation of the friendship. It was fun to bounce that stuff back and forth. Like a good tennis game. They're the ones that fifteen years later I still go back and visit ... and we debate the politics all over again.
Somehow in America we've got to the point where different political views have become a source of division. Time to call a spade a spade. In America 90% of this nonsense comes from the Left.
Lefties: you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Not for your views, but for your bitter, utterly childish attitudes towards those who disagree with you. You're obviously quite insecure in your beliefs, and it diminishes all of us.
Charles Giacometti is apparently an associate in the Wilkes-Barre, PA law firm of Moses & Gelso, L.L.P. He apparently practices personal injury defense.
“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into” - Swift.
There is a recurring fantasy that imbecility and bad manners will be vanquished by a witty and penetrating reply. It doesn't work that way, alas. Better to take a shot, if you must, and then move on.
boldface- nothing good can come from posting that.
Bart, we are an armed people 'down here' - that tends to make for sharper dichotomies in open forums like this. I have no doubt that even the most rabid Leftist troll who comes to pee here would be quite civil in a face-to-face discussion with any of the usual group that posts here.
Rich B said...
"There is a recurring fantasy that imbecility and bad manners will be vanquished by a witty and penetrating reply. It doesn't work that way, alas. Better to take a shot, if you must, and then move on."
True. I've shot off a few funny responses to boorish dinner conversation comments and they usually don't even get it. After being called ‘evil’ or something ... making fun of the fact they claim to be leftist secularists... and such... just lost on them.
The next response is to just stop accepting invitations to events they're at.
I agree with Sippican in relation to "boldface"'s comment. I'm not necessarily opposed to outing anonymous posters (Daily Kos' Armando springs to mind), but since we have no particular reason to assume that in this case, "Charles Giacometti" is not a nom de plume, I'd hate for this guy to be misidentified as that guy.
Moreover, the Charles posting upthread has a profile that specifies his location as Boston, and lists his profession as "publishing"; since absolutely nothing he has posted here even vaguely suggests a legal education, I'm inclined to think that the lawyer Giacometti in PA is not our anomymous irritant.
Lefties: you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Funny, but a lot of the internal division started due to policies from the .... right. Now if you people turned out to be right on what you were talking about... no big deal. But we're losing ground, big time.
The country's future is being flushed down the toilet thanks to this administration. Maybe in 20 years, you'll better see it...
Ooooh.... "outing".
Funny how that's always attributed as a tactic of the left...
Goesh said: I have no doubt that even the most rabid Leftist troll who comes to pee here would be quite civil in a face-to-face discussion
I disagree, rather strongly. I live and farm 13 miles from downtown Lawrence, Kansas, the main "oasis" of left-wing thought in this part of the world. The level of bitterness, intolerance, and unwillingness to have a decent conversation continues to astound me.
If you're ever in this part of the world, stop by the Free State brew-pub too see what I mean. The beer is by far the best to be found south of Canada, but as political conversations go ... it's pitiful.
"The next response is to just stop accepting invitations to events they're at."
OK in theory, impossible in practice. In certain settings, it's absolutely guaranteed there will be at least one doctrinaire lefty at every dinner or cocktail party, every-ready to begin a political monologue. You can either stay home, or cultivate a benignly blank expression while you wait for normal conversation to recur.
Ann Althouse: "Reality Check: 'Mrs Althouse'
I love the way lefties forget not to be sexist when they are talking about someone they perceive to be on the right."
I'm not sure if you really believe that is sexist for someone to refer to you as 'Mrs.', or if you are just going for the gotcha on Reality Check.
If you really do buy into that victimology mindset of the left, I don't see how anyone could mistake you for a tool of the right.
On another note, blockquote tags would sure come in handy.
"The country's future is being flushed down the toilet thanks to this administration. Maybe in 20 years, you'll better see it..."
Has this not been said about every administration since Washington?
"Oooh, the country is ruined, in the year(1822, 1845, 1883, 1922, 1974, 2001, etc.) you'll see!"
No, I think that's about right, although I think you're setting the bar a little low - a bag of cold porridge is "far smarter, far wittier, far more reasonable, and far sexier than Ann Coulter."
Yes, but unlike cold porridge, Ann Althouse is hot.
Has this not been said about every administration since Washington?
I wish it weren't true Paddy, but the stakes are so much higher than right now than many of you are willing to acknowledge...
Can anyone refer me to a good doc who prescribes the optimism pills y'all seem to be munching? Or is it that we're supposed to be content looking out for us and ours, and just not worry about the country as a whole?
Because if you take a hard cold look at the numbers, I can't understand all the cheering here, thinking we're still in the lead with no one coming up close behind.
tjl said...
"OK in