December 13, 2006

Oppressed by the label "Republican"?

Dr. Helen is showing solidarity.
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?

187 comments:

Pogo said...

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.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

'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.

VICTOR said...

[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 . . . .

Ann Althouse said...

Hey, Bart, check the banner at the top of the page.

Anonymous said...

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."

Goesh said...

"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.

Anonymous said...

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.

reader_iam said...

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... .

DBrooks said...

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.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

"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.

Wurly said...

Ann -

You are simply being treated as a presumed apostate by the left.

MD said...

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.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Bart - Pure poetry, the whole thing. Beautifully written.

(Aside to Reader: Oops! Oh well, I'll give amba credit next time I quote you ;)

Tim said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Sloanasaurus said...

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.

Mike said...

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.

Derve said...

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.

Simon said...

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

Derve said...

Might make Republicans a bit more competitive too.

Anonymous said...

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.

Simon said...

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?

Mortimer Brezny said...

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.]

Tim said...

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...

Anonymous said...

Anyone missing a pair of socks this morning?

Ann Althouse said...

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.

Simon said...

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?

Tim said...

" 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.

Mike said...

Tim, It's a religion. You must be converted.

Simon said...

"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.

Simon said...

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.

Jimmac said...

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.

Tim 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."

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.

Troy said...

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.

Anonymous said...

I think that was a joke, Tony.
[BWDIK]

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. I suppose prayer might help.

Anonymous said...

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?

Charles Giacometti said...

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.

Simon said...

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. ;)

Simon said...

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.

MD said...

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.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Giacometti said...

Simon,

Definitely go with the schadenfreude. Angry, intellectually lightweight, bottle blondes like Coulter and Althouse are so not my type.

Revenant said...

"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.

SteveR said...

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.

MD said...

What's the male equivalent of bottle blonde, eh? Bad toupe? Those irritating long side burns or too much 'product'? Hmmm......

Anonymous said...

Simon, I believe Charles when he says bottle blondes aren't his type. Ripple bottles might be a different case. Perhaps two.

Tim said...

"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.

Simon said...

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.

Simon said...

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?

Goesh said...

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....

Sloanasaurus said...

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.

Charles Giacometti said...

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.

Fatmouse said...

Is Charles Giacometti the second coming of Deb Frisch?

Anonymous said...

PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY NOTICE

Help Keep Our Comunnity Clean & Safe
Please DO NOT feed the trolls.

Goesh said...

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

Simon said...

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.

Jim Hu said...

projection ≠ schadenfreude.

Henry said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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...

Anonymous said...

Internet Ronin: I hear NYC is considering a city-wide ban on Troll Feeding.

Alan said...

OT: Speaking of Cisero...the second and last season of HBO's ROME starts in January.

Pogo said...

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.

Matthew said...

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.

Mortimer Brezny said...

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.

Zeb Quinn said...

"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.

Paul Zrimsek said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul Zrimsek said...

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.

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.

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.

sonicfrog said...

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!!! :-)

LoafingOaf said...

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

sonicfrog said...

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!!!

tjl said...

"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.

Paul said...

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.

Michael said...

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'.

sonicfrog said...

Is it just me, or does Charles Giacometti come off as wordy, neutered version of Travis Bickle?

Simon said...

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.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

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.

boldface said...

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.

Anonymous said...

“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.

Anonymous said...

boldface- nothing good can come from posting that.

Goesh said...

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.

Sl0re said...

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.

Simon said...

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.

Derve said...

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...

Derve said...

Ooooh.... "outing".

Funny how that's always attributed as a tactic of the left...

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

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.

tjl said...

"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.

Anon Y. Mous said...

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.

Paddy O. said...

"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!"

Mortimer Brezny said...

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.

Derve said...

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.

Sl0re said...

tjl said...

"OK in theory, impossible in practice."

Luckily my family throws about half the get togethers in our circle of acquaintances. So, I was... 'armed' for the fight... and in the end, the calculus worked in my favor...

Social Justice! ;)

Mike said...

"The country's future is being flushed down the toilet thanks to this administration."

Oh, good grief.

Simon said...

Mort,
Inter alia.

2BrixShy said...

"If you would have listened to common sense Derve..."

Oooh, that there's a major misconduct penalty- referring to yourself in the third person.

All your tiresome would be pedantic jibberjabber aside, the 3rd person penalty automatically renders you a pompous doofus, and your self styled "reasoned" commentary becomes suspect.

Anyway- Ms. Althouse, while not a frequent visitor to your site, must say it's one of the more genteel and refined in terms of site content and commenters that I've seen on the net. Will not hazard comparing said site to a mode of transportation at this point, being an infrequent visitor and all.

As for your tailored political ideology in an off the rack society- screw 'em if they can't appreciate couture.

Henry said...

Luckily my family throws about half the get togethers in our circle of acquaintances.

In my case, all it takes is a few family get-togethers and I get exposed to almost every common political position in the country.

Which maybe is why I don't equate politics with personal morality.

screw 'em if they can't appreciate couture

That's banner material! Funny, I've always felt it no accident that Althouse couples law and politics with Project Runway.

MadisonMan said...

Haven't I seen this comment threat before?

Liam Colvin said...

I am continually amazed as to how what is going on now here and in the world is worse and more conseqence-ridden than the Civil war, WW1, WW2, the Korean war, Viet Nam, DDT, the Weathermen, the SDS, the gas crisis, and cancer.

Apparently we hold the fate of the entire world in our evil, grubby right wing hands.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning!!!!!!!!!

Ann Althouse said...

Zeb: I see outrageously sexist things written about me on the lefty blogs nearly every day. I've thought of collecting them and doing a post about it, but I have better things to do. I know it goes on.

DRJ said...

Derve,

So the stakes are much higher now than they were in the 1960's-1970's, when the free world faced nuclear war with the Soviets? Higher than the late 70's, when we endured double-digit inflation and stagnation under Carter? Your selective memory (or lack of it) is telling.

Ann Althouse said...

Fill me in here: Which commenter(s) do you suspect are sock puppets and who's the puppeteer? Greenwald (who openly admits his obsession with me)?

Liam Colvin said...

Whoops. Sorry. Forgot about the Cold War.

Thanks drj!

Derve said...

All your tiresome would be pedantic jibberjabber aside, the 3rd person penalty automatically renders you a pompous doofus, and your self styled "reasoned" commentary becomes suspect.

Oooh, disqualifying substance on a technicality!

How very ... weasely of you. Do you get a prize, or even celebrate a win like that in your culture? My type tends to applaud most viciously for hard-fought wins, earned on merit. You walk away secure in the internal reward, rather than scoring cheap ultimately meaningless points. It's the final score that counts... FWIW

Goesh said...

"best wags in town - goesh" now that's real banner fodder.....

Derve said...

So the stakes are much higher now than they were in the 1960's-1970's, when the free world faced nuclear war with the Soviets?

Yes imo.
Looking at who will have nuclear weaponry in the immediate future, the Soviets were stable negotiating partners in comparison. Remember the Cuban missle crisis? And how many suicide bombers did the Russian culture produce anyway?

Don't be so stupid to deny the stakes to make a cheap point against me, eh? Enough about Carter's gas lines; look at the economic forecast today and how balanced the economy is. Then look East, my friend. Wake up and learn what competition really is, eh?

Mortimer Brezny said...

Mort,
Inter alia.


True. I forgot to mention Ann is also not made of oatmeal. (I mentioned her intelligence before. Don't try to get me on that one. I certainly didn't call her "Missus"!)

Pogo said...

Re: "the Soviets were stable negotiating partners in comparison"

This is a statement completely bereft of even the barest hint of knowledge. Pathetic.

Sounds like something Carter would say.

Fatmouse said...

Of course Derve is exactly right that things are much worse than the 40-odd years we spent on the brink of atomic holocaust! Our evil capitalist hubris has spawned...

global warming

Ooooooooo. What's a few thousand nukes next to that boogeyman?

Old Dad said...

Ann,

Losers hate success. They try to wreck what they can't themselves enjoy. You see it at pricey prep schools all the time. The back stabbing is Homeric.

Blog success also brings the law of large numbers into play. You're attracting a lot of traffic, and hence, your fair share of nuts, losers, sociopaths, and just plain mean spirited bastards.

Fatmouse said...

Then look East, my friend. Wake up and learn what competition really is, eh?

Wait. Wait. WAIT.

You're talking about China, yes? You're afraid that their economy is growing rapidly and that will somehow be a greater threat than the possibility of full nuclear war?

Oh, my bad, I forgot that you're a socialist douchebag who thinks that no one can get richer without someone else getting poorer.

Derve said...

You're talking about China, yes? You're afraid that their economy is growing rapidly and that will somehow be a greater threat than the possibility of full nuclear war?

Worry about both your economy and military defense if you're smart.
And look at those numbers in terms of trade balance and debt.

Simon said...

Derve said...
"Ooooh.... outing. Funny how that's always attributed as a tactic of the left...

Note how the only two people to respond to "boldface"'s comment have both criticized it, Derve...

However, I do have to side with Derve on the issue of whether Al Queda is more dangerous than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was always held in check by MAD, and so its ability to cause harm was always limited by the threat of retaliation. But terrorism is not so constrained, and so it stands to reason that although an individual terrorist attack is going to do less damage at one time than a strategic nuclear exchange, one or more terrorist incidents are also exponentially more likely to take place than such an exchange by virtue of the inapplicability of relatiation as a checking force.

Mort,
Is there a term for having a man crush on someone who isn't actually a male? And can you have a transient plain ol' crush alongside a standing non-male man crush? Some deep questions to be pondered.

dix said...

Derve writes "Looking at who will have nuclear weaponry in the immediate future, the Soviets were stable negotiating partners in comparison. Remember the Cuban missle crisis?"

I'm not sure if invoking the Cuban Missile Crisis is your best play to prove your point that the world is more dangerous or the "stakes are higher" right now.

MD said...

Derve, I gotta tell you, as an Indian American doctor (cliched, I know) who has briefly thought about relocating back to India to practice (and my parents came here for the opportunity), let me just say that protectionism and outsourcing demogoguery will not keep our economy healthy (not that you engaged in any of that). I can compete, I want to compete, I can produce, I want to produce, but it's hard when there are ten layers of bureaucracy between you and your goal: taking care of patients. Plus, I'm a multiple sclerosis patient, so I see it from the other side, too. Of course, the wonderful vestiges of the socialist license Raj are pretty toublesome too. India starts cutting some of the red tape and look at her go! We should stay as nimble. Threading the needle, of course, will be how to grow in a fast changing world and the feelings (very real) of insecurity that go with that. But, grow, I say, grow. Lou Dobbs-ism will only make things worse.

Pogo said...

Derve, really, yer outta your league. You don't understand this stuff except in the most superficial way. You're also invincibly ignorant, so the hell with it.

Anonymous said...

I think every great man is a feminist, and I think you can tell a lot about a country on how it treats its women. That said, perhaps Ann could join me and pay tribute to Delay's brave and tireless work in stopping legislation backed by Clinton that would bring reform to the CNMI garment industry, in hopes of curbing human trafficking, forced abortions, sex slavery, and workers living behind barbed wire in squalid shacks.

Pointing out the fact him and his cronies accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in return from the garment factories, is just proof that vicious and nasty lefties are just persecuting and undermining the serious work being done (God willing) by freedom loving Republicans.

Mortimer Brezny said...

I hope you aren't calling Ann a man, Simon. That isn't originalist. That's just rude.

Derve said...

I'm not sure if invoking the Cuban Missile Crisis is your best play to prove your point that the world is more dangerous or the "stakes are higher" right now.

I know how "high" they were then and purposely used that example. Yes. I think the stakes -- the true risk, if you will -- is higher now. Perhaps that explains why some of us are so irritatingly earnest, while others are content to namecall and divide the country from within; they can't acknowledge the true risk.

Simon said...

Mort,
I would think that formalism would seem more apt to your comments above, no? But in any event, no, that isn't what I was saying, and I think that's clear. :p

MD said...

Apologies, Derve, I kinda responded to something you didn't quite say. Oh well, at least I got on my soap-box today :)

Pogo said...

Re: Cuban Missile Crisis

We were at high risk then, and we're at high risk now. Both are the fault of the nations threatening us; the blame does not belong to us in any way at all. To suggest otherwise is too foolish to warrant a hearing.

So, there are very bad people in the world, and we need a very strong military to thwart their murderous plans.

Is that really news?

Mike said...

If you measure risk only as the probabilty that something bad will happen, it's probably higher now (vis a vis nuclear weapons). If, however, you measure risk as the product of the probabilty that something bad will happen and the quantity of badness if it does happen, I don't think you can credibly wax nostalgic for the good old days of the Cold War.

Mike said...

Pogo's point is an excellent one, Derve. Not everybody here is in agreement with you that the fault that we are at higher risk now (accepting your premise for the sake of argument) lies with this Administration.

Mortimer Brezny said...

I would think that formalism would seem more apt to your comments above

I'm not sure what formalism has to do with fireworks and oatmeal.

Charles Giacometti said...

Boldface, others:

No, I am not the Wilkes-Barre lawyer. As Simon correctly noted, I live in the Boston area and work in publishing. But, yes, Charles Giacometti is my real name.

If you want to do a little more digging, find out where I work, who my boss is, etc., go to town. My bosses would laugh at you and hang up the phone.

Pogo said...

Re; "My bosses would laugh at you and hang up the phone."

But doesn't that happen regarding you at work alot anyway?

Charles Giacometti said...

Pogo,

I am sure you are the funniest 7th grader in Bugtussle with lines like that.

class-factotum said...

I can't begin to compare myself to the esteemed Ms Ann, but I had the experience recently of a relatively faithful reader of two years emailing me to tell me she was taking me off her favorites list because I had offended her with a post entitled "Useless Idiots" where I quoted a call on the Rush Limbaugh show. She told me I was self-righteous, judgmental and mean and that she didn't appreciate being labeled an idiot just because her views differed from mine. (She thought my posts in the past few months were just as mean -- this was the tipping point.)

I'm not quite sure how she got from a post title playing on Lenin's term for American communists to herself. Maybe she saw herself in the caller, who thought the troubles in the Mideast were all Israel's fault and thought that if Israel were to cease to exist as a nation, the Islamist terrorists would become our new best friends.

But I never said, "Susan" is a Useless Idiot. She, however, took the reference personally, as did my boyfriend's parents, birkenstock-wearing, socialist atheiest card-carrying liberals who have Mother Jones on the coffee table and an "Impeach Bush" poster in the computer room.

When I read an opinion piece I disagree with, especially one that attacks conservatives, I roll my eyes and think, "This guy is an idiot and he's wrong." Usually, he has the facts wrong. But I don't take it personally -- I just assume the writer can't be bothered to think and analyze and I go on my merry way. I sure don't let it ruin my day.

LoafingOaf said...

Ann Althouse said...
Fill me in here: Which commenter(s) do you suspect are sock puppets and who's the puppeteer? Greenwald (who openly admits his obsession with me)?


If that's to me, I meant that Giacometti is a commenter at the sock-puppeteer's (Greenwald's) site. I had a run-in with him there, which I remember because it was around the time he started plaguing this site.

Greenwald gets him all worked up about who the "enemies" are and he goes around the internet as if on a jihad, making sure to also toss in that Greenwald sells more books and Greenwald is kicking their asses , etc. I don't think he's a sock puppet; I think he's projecting when he calls others sycophants.

I'd be surprised if Greenwald ever pulled out his sock puppet again, after being busted. How many times would he be able to convince his fans to look the other way? Heck, I don't even think Alpha Liberal is a sock puppet. (Well...on second thought.....)

Pogo said...

Bugtussle? 7th grader?

Man, you kill! No wonder you're in publishing! You clearly have Van Gogh's ear for wit.

Jim C. said...

I'll assume Prof. Althouse is just using Socratic irony when she says she doesn't understand the hate, because it seems obvious to me.

In my experience, when something makes no sense at all, one or more of my assumptions/premises is wrong, sometimes utterly and disastrously.

Here I think it's that the left's top priorities are such things equality and free speech. They certainly are not now. Power tops everything, including those two, which are light-years distant. As a former Democrat, I can only wonder if they were ever their true priorities.

Prof. A. is a threat to that power.

Charles Giacometti, you project so much your ideal job would be in a movie theater. You do realize, don't you, that anything so absurd and over the top as your post just makes most people wonder what mental hospital you're posting from?

Simon said...

Mort,
Because it has to do with form, which I'm also willing to bet has at least something to do with the reasoning behind your 12:47 comment. It was a lame attempt at a joke. *shrug* My jokes tend to fall flat around here... In this thread, we have learned that I'm neither smart nor funny. LOL.

Pogo said...

Re: "In this thread, we have learned that I'm neither smart nor funny."

Hey, Simon, join the club!
I call it "Greenwald's Place", for all us unsmart unfunny folk.

Revenant said...

Yes. I think the stakes -- the true risk, if you will -- is higher now. Perhaps that explains why some of us are so irritatingly earnest, while others are content to namecall and divide the country from within; they can't acknowledge the true risk.

I love how Derve keeps droning on about "the true risk" and how great it allegedly is, but can't ever seem to get around to saying exactly what exactly we're risking, here.

We've now established that Derve thinks the stakes are higher now than they were when the USA and the USSR were a single phone call away from annihilating all human life on the planet. I'm puzzled as to what, exactly, could possibly be worse than that. Has Bush been secretly building a Death Star and only Derve knows about it? Have the plans fallen into the hands of Pat Robertson and we've only minutes to live? Inquiring minds want to know.

Alan said...

Instead of looking East for the question of trade balance look Middle East. IMO, the U.S. has yet to take energy independence serious, and at our own peril. We need to turn the dollar spigot off for M.E. oil.

Revenant said...

"Laugh it up, Fuzzball"

If that's a roundabout way of referring to the danger that George Lucas might keep inflicting news "Star Wars" material on the unsuspecting public, I agree that the risk is indeed very high -- and, as you've hinted, perhaps higher than it has ever been before.

But I'm not sure I agree that the risk of, say, a Jar Jar Binks "Life Day" Special is necessarily worse than the nuclear annihilation of all of human civilization.

Mortimer Brezny said...

There's nowhere I can take that but to a bad place, Simon.

Richard Dolan said...

It's quite amazing how much energy some people put into cutting up others whom they don't know and will never meet. What is the point of such mindless blather? It must be because both parties enjoy it. If there were any wit in the exchange, I could see it. But witless and silly insults for their own sake? I don't get it.

MM is qute right that this thread seems tired and repetitious.

Simon said...

Mort - there! You see? That's using discretion. :D There's a line (often a thin one) betwixt lighthearted and complimentary - effusive, even - on the one hand and just plain creepy on the other. The trick is to figure out when you're about to cross it somewhere between clicking "preview" and clicking "publish this comment."

AST said...

I get that a lot. Whenever I try to point out inconsistencies and ask questions, they think I'm attacking their views.

That's what happens when you try to get people to think things through.

I'm a conservative and as irrascible as anybody, but I want to think things through, and I don't find much of that around.

Paco Wové said...

Derve said:
Perhaps that explains why some of us are so irritatingly earnest, while others are content to namecall and divide the country from within; they can't acknowledge the true risk.

The marvelous thing about this quote is that it can apply equally well to the left and the right.

Liam Colvin said...

Seriously, Derve: you are the poster child as to why I don't post comments on leftie sites.

You come over here, thinking you're speaking truth to power, and all you do is post cranky comments and spray nasty bile-like substances in all directions, rarely making a point anyone is going to agree with.

And it's not that you don't have something to say that people here might agree with: it's that you *don't want anyone here to agree with you*. Other than maybe, "god, I DO hate Ann! Thanks for making me realize it!"

You are out to vent, not discuss. Lambasting people here for liking Ann and her blog is like me going over to Firedoglake and pointing out how much I don't like the blogs over there. Sure, you know where I stand, but so what? Nothing of substance was communicated other than my feelings.

So: thanks for sharing and bye bye...

Simon said...

"You are out to vent, not discuss. "

That's precisely what Glenn suggested in the podcast Ann blogged about earlier in the week. It's just a venting exercise.

Liam Colvin said...

Well, you know venting is fine, *up to a point*. After a while it starts to resemble self flagellation. It is not pretty.

I am all for good sarcastic wit and clever commentary, particularly when backed up with facts and reasonable arguments. I am not so attracted to name calling, ad hominem attacks and general bar brawling. That I can get at the *bar*.

Blog-battles have become quite the interacative spectator sport recently. I still read Sullivan for instance, but don't feel the need to comment on the clear case of christo-dementia he is suffering from right now. It's painfully obvious that he is sliding off into a deeply trivial abyss that I am pretty sure he will never emerge from. So sad, too bad.

Ann (if I may be so bold as to take the liberty) has a very stimulating cross section of ideas that are not definable via any particular political persuasion. I like that.

I tend to be like that too, but I cannot, for the life of me, get my lefty friends to accept that I am human anymore, if for no other reason other than I held my nose and voted for W 2 times. I didn't like it, but was even less happy with the Democrats for being pathologically unable to field anything other than Lurch and Al "I have deep thoughts" Gore. Give me a choice folks. Sorry, not Obama. Try again.

I am NOT Republican, but I am NOT Liberal. I am an American, and as such I tend to mystify the intelligensia and the press. More's the pity.

Seven Machos said...

I see Derve is at it again, despite getting banned from this site several times. Take heart, though. Eventually, she gets all mad removes her comments in an earnest, righteous, bitter huff.

Isn't that right, Derve?

Robert O'Brien said...

Professor Althouse:

I do not know why you would give two hoots about Left Blogistan. When your critics are people like Amanda Marcotte, a hayseed from the hills of West Texas with only one string on her banjo (i.e., feminism) and only a pretense of learning, it is not worth considering why you irk them.

In fact, if you irritate such rabble you must be doing something right.

Anonymous said...

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

Anonymous said...

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

Anonymous said...

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

Anonymous said...

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

Anonymous said...

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Mort - there! You see? That's using discretion.

Actually, I was kidding. The comment I posted and then deleted was just fine in my opinion and I don't think Ann would have minded. But I imagine YOU would have gone on and on about it and that your commentary on my comment would have been in bad taste. It has nothing to do with discretion on my part and everything to do with you policing my posts here because, apparently, only one poster per thread is permitted to be a sycophant of Ann.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the double post.

The Exalted said...

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


right -- the democrats should stop saying that their opponents are terrorist lovers and traitors -- wait, its not the democrats who say that?? well, who is it then??

The Exalted said...

I am continually amazed as to how what is going on now here and in the world is worse and more conseqence-ridden than the Civil war, WW1, WW2, the Korean war, Viet Nam, DDT, the Weathermen, the SDS, the gas crisis, and cancer.

Apparently we hold the fate of the entire world in our evil, grubby right wing hands.


dude, its the right that claims that we are in wwIII and that the terrorists could "win" and install OBL and hillary! in the white house. the right.

Derve said...

The marvelous thing about this quote is that it can apply equally well to the left and the right.

Just trying to help with that centrist balance thang...

Liam Colvin said...

"dude, its the right that claims that we are in wwIII and that the terrorists could "win" and install OBL and hillary! in the white house. the right. "

Partially right. If by the "right" you mean the government, they are in a strange place. How do you keep people's attention on something that they are quite sure is more important than the press seems to think it is? Well, you have to keep the drumbeat up.

Just as the "left" likes to describe soldiers as victimized morons (or occasionally homocidal maniacs), the "right" feels the need to emphasize the gravity of the situation and the amazing work being done in the field. Not to mention the totally skewed messages coming out of Iraq when comparing press reports to military staff.

The major problem with Iraq right now is *political*. And, oddly enough, not Iraqi politics. True, they are screwed up, but everything the ISG and the Congress is really concerned about is saving face, not Iraq.

The military, by and large, want to finish the job there. It's just (as always) the government getting in the way and not allowing them to do it.

The Exalted said...

liam,

i dont really understand what you wrote, to tell the truth.

political issues in iraq? the major "problem" in iraq is the vicious civil war.

congress shouldn't be concerned about "saving iraq," congress should be concerned about the pursuit of american interests. if "saving iraq," to the extent thats even possible, is too costly, then "saving iraq" should not be a goal of congress.

skewed messages coming out of iraq? are you part of the "painting schools" crowd?

and, as always on this blog, there are silly generalizations about what "the left" thinks or calls the troops. i'm not aware of any such sentiment that you express.

and by "the right," i mean "the right." the administration is part of the right, the right wing media machine is part of the right, and newt gingrich is part of the right.

Mellow-Drama said...

Let's be honest, it's arguable, as Derve says, that the stakes are higher now in a way. Just not in the way Derve seems to think.

Sure, we were on the brink of nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, but that's just a whistle and a flash and it's all over. What's worse is the threat we're facing today, and not from the Bush Administration.

The threat is that our culture no longer cares about defending its common ideals and values; that democracy all over the world is at stake and no one can be bothered to even define the enemy as being "wrong", let alone fighting it. That our descendants are going to be under constant attack from the ever-growing jihadi population, or worse, will keep making attempts to accommodate in ways that just capitulates to avoid the capital crime of OFFENDING SOMEONE; and future attacks are going to lead to curtailed or even suspended liberties if we don't take this threat seriously. There won't be an American left to fight for. That's the threat, and I think in a way it is certainly greater than the Cold War. Probably as great as the threat in WWII, and harder to fight because it's not military battles alone that need to be won.

Mellow-Drama said...

Oh yeah, and happy holidays, everyone.

Verification word: "egeewy" - Just how I felt Monday when I had the stomach flu.

caffeine soldier said...

"If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity."

Stop whining, baby. Can't you simply take it like a man?
:P

tjl said...

"the right wing media machine"

Where exactly, Exalted, does such a thing exist? On this planet, the media flagship, the NYT, for all intents and purposes serves as the house organ of the Democratic Party. The remainder of the print and broadcast media, except for the somewhat declasse Fox, follows the NYT's lead. What are you complaining about?

Alpha Liberal said...

Let me help:

- Ann Althouse makes far too many half-baked assertions.

- When challenged with fact, Ann Althouse often responds with silliness. Silliness is fine but don't engage a serious conversation, turn to silliness when you are proven wrong and then turn around and attack your protagonist as being too serious.

- Althouse attacks people, sometimes in very nasty ways, because they have challeneged her statements.

- Althouse makes (poorly reasoned) excuses for Constitutional abuses by the bush Administration. Again, when challenged, her responses are without substance, often contradicted by factual reality, but contain plenty of snark.

Althouse's followers usually (not always) engage in the same pattern.

Hope that helps. Adios.

Alpha Liberal said...

I forgot to add..

- After engaging in pettiness, nastiness and poorly reasoned debate, Althouse then turns around and assumes an air of supriority over liberals shared with her right wing friends.

- Althouse is damn near blind to wretvched partisan excesses of the right.

Hey, maybe you can take an appointment in Chicago! Don't worry about Madison. we'll be fine!

Alpha Liberal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alpha Liberal said...

tjl, I could give you a hundred examples and factual analysis of right wing media balance. But would you look at it with an open mind? Naaah. You've got your alternate universe. No sesne in wasting time.

Just ask youself who owns and controls the media? Are media moguls really of a liberal stripe?

Take a break from the KoolAid and we can talk again.
(remember, like Ann, this is just funny. Have a sense of humor).

tjl said...

"Are media moguls really of a liberal stripe?"

Let's ask Pinch Sulzberger!

Seven Machos said...

Are media moguls really of a liberal stripe?

You must be kidding. Do you really believe that the people who run CNN, the New York Post, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, and NPR are conservative?

tjl said...

In this election cycle, the NYT did not endorse a single Republican candidate in its three-state distribution area. We may conclude either:

a) the Democratic Party has a total monopoly on political virtue in the three-state area; or
b)the NYT's media moguls REALLY ARE of a liberal stripe.

Do you think a) or b) is the more likely explanation?

Seven Machos said...

Alpha Liberal is about to drop the WHAT ABOUT FOX NEWS?!!!?? bomb. Blatant conservative bias in news presentation is bad. Blatant liberal and left-wing presentation is laudable.

Lefties cannot stand that Fox News exists.

caffeine soldier said...

a)
All Polls show that NYC is deep blue. Republicans have to be very moderate, of the Lync Chaffee type, to make it there. But they were confronted with too many republican scandals this year. The endoresements are no surprise.

And Sulzberger a liberal? The guy who first pushed Judy "WH talking points" Millers carreer and then defended here 'til it hurt? You got to be kidding!

Synova said...

alpha liberal,

And what of the writer (someone promoted on Glen Reynold's blog, actually) who when talking about a book series he was writing announced with a bit of happiness that in the next one he got to kill off George Bush?

I don't know if he changed the name or not, or described the President giving him a different name.

But that's fiction, and with alternate realities and stuff there's all sorts of opportunities to do in the people who annoy you. So I'll read his books anyway. He's a talented story teller.

Still, to get writerly pedantic on you... the lead up to publication is often years, if by "last March" you mean March 2006, it would be excessively difficult to "write in" anything about anyone in a book pubilshed in 2006. Near impossible.

If you want to talk nasty, how about the serious suggestions by people such as Dr. John Reid, quoted by Tim Blair (his link isn't working for me)

"War, Pestilence, and Famine, three of the horsemen of the apocalypse, can bring about a reduction in the human population. But these kill on a scale of tens of millions, which is not enough to solve the problem of over-population. And they are most brutal in the ways they kill. Consequently, let us consider the alternative ...

The next most human way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water ..."

Reid believes “the world’s most affluent populations should be targeted first”.

Not even fiction. Serious talk about forcefully sterilizing huge swathes of the population against their will. This is coming from the global warming - humanity is a disease crowd, and I'm supposed to think a writer is evil for writing fiction about them that is mean?

Face it, these people can't stand to be exposed for the evil they are.

Seven Machos said...

Does Sulzberger believe in big government? Does he want to raise taxes or lower them? Does he have a Jacksonian foreign policy? How did he feel about welfare reform? What is his position on abortion? What is his position on policing? Affirmative action? Gay marriage? How religious is he?

When was the last time he supported a conservative candidate?

Pinch is the epitome of a New York left-liberal. Anyone who doesn't understand that Arthur Sulzberger is a left-liberal straight out of Radical Chic ought to be banned from reasonable discourse, for the good of the discourse.

tjl said...

"Anyone who doesn't understand that Arthur Sulzberger is a left-liberal straight out of Radical Chic ought to be banned."

But Seven, before we ban Alpha Liberal, let's be scrupulously fair. Maybe Alpha honestly does believe Pinch isn't left-wing, because to Alpha, Pinch seems far to the right. That would be because Alpha believes in nationalization of the means of production, collectivization of agriculture, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Lefties often think they and their views are "mainstream," because in the [highly restricted] circles they frequent ... they are.

One example. 22% of Americans favor absolutely unrestricted abortion. Any woman. Any age. Any time. Any reason. Any stage of gestation.

Just 3% favor what amounts to total restriction except when the life of the mother is directly threatened.

75% of Americans favor restrictions on abortion.

Which view is "mainstream"? Which view utterly dominates one US political party?

Alpha Liberal said...

Ann's administrator removed content I posted from this post showing a vicious atack by a right wing writer. I had asked Ann Althouse to address herself to Mr. Crichton's manners as she is so intent on painting lefty bloggers as "vicious and nasty" in lieu of substance.

You won't hear criticism of this
"vicious and nasty" writing from Ann nor any of the braying self-righteous pundits who turn a blind eye to wretched ceonservative excesses. Nor does she employ "substance", though it's good to see her consider the idea.

This writer is a conservative Bush follower:

Journalist Critical Of Climate Skeptic Michael Crichton Written Into Crichton Novel As Child Rapist


p.s. yeah, I'm real.

Alpha Liberal said...

Synova, I don't know what writer you're referring to. Do you have first hand knowledge of this or is it something you heard someone talking about?

Right wingers were calling for Clinton's murder.

Thing is, Althouse routinely goes on the attack than poses dramatically as victim.

no more bandwith for her!

Seven Machos said...

What is it about Ann Althouse that causes leftwingers to go bat-shit crazy?

For whatever it's worth, I think it's the same impulse that caused rightwingers to hate perfectly reasonably conservative John McCain.

There's a good little thesis here, for someone smarter and more perceptive than me to get to the bottom of.

Ann Althouse said...

Alpha: I deleted your comment because it contained an assertion about a particular individual and because it had a gratuitous description of sex with a child. Get a goddamned clue!

Ann Althouse said...

And as to my failure to blog about some news story (that I didn't even notice)... I don't have to look for and blog about things as a defense against your inferences. What a crap blog this would be if that was my standard.

Synova said...

I don't want to prejudice people against the author because he may well have (as most authors do when putting someone they dislike into a story) disguised the identity of the pres to the point of deniability. Plus, I have no idea how the presidential death was treated, or even if it made it through the final draft. (It's not as though writers never kill off presidents.)

As for first hand knowledge... it was the author himself in a public internet forum who made the statement. Do I know it was really him? To a high degree of certainty, yes.

Was I a little disappointed to hear it, yes. Is it important in some larger sense, no. Killing people is a common pastime in fiction. The novel I'm presently working on begins with someone getting blown into little gooey bits and on the forum we're talking about the mechanics of such a thing. How is a person made to splatter?

Mystery writer's clubs spend a lot of their time figuring out how to kill people. Crime books portray horrible torture and abuse.

Taking fiction too seriously, and *particularly* taking what authors research or put in their books as some indication of the author's desires (what does human flesh taste like, anyway) is a mistake.

Anonymous said...

do not know why you would give two hoots about Left Blogistan. When your critics are people like Amanda Marcotte, a hayseed from the hills of West Texas with only one string on her banjo (i.e., feminism) and only a pretense of learning, it is not worth considering why you irk them.

Yeah, Marcotte is a one trick pony from West Texas. Likes to imagine that she's from somewhere else. Has little education. The irony is that she works for U of Texas, a government job supported by taxpayers. That's right, she blogs on the taxpayers' dime....all day long, playing that one string. There is a reason why she no longer posts the time of day of her articles.

caffeine soldier said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

Caffeine: I don't have the time to figure out what you are talking about. Please don't repost like that.