Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
You don't need to stoop to the level of the modern left. You have class. You have my vote.
Looks like the rout is on!Damn shame. Well, at least it's not like you shamelessly groveled for votes or anything... or said you really wanted to "crush" TMV.Also, this post is paranoid and dotty enough to satisfy your "enemies," I'd wager.
Looks like the rout is on!Damn shame. Well, at least it's not like you groveled for votes or anything... or said you really wanted to "crush" TMV.Also, this post is paranoid and dotty enough to satisfy your "enemies," I'd wager.
Seeing double Doyle? I hear that can happen to people who stay awake all night running around empty offices using all the computers therein in to vote in some contest.
I'm sorry, I don't think you are centrist.I hear "Run Rudy Run" quite often from you, yet you then tear into Bill and Hillary about his affairs and her calculated nature. When Ann Coulter implies that Bill is gay because he has had affairs, you defend her, then go on a sidetrack about how Bill Clinton was an evil man who no feminist should defend, but fail to mention that Ann's theory could just as well apply to Rudy, and Rudy's behavior is not something any feminist should defend as well.Of course, in regards to what a feminist is, we will have to defer to your almighty opinion in regards to what a feminist is, since you dismiss those on the left who view themselves as feminist because they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. That's exactly how most centrists behave, right?Wrong. Professor Althouse, a centrist? No, too many double standards, too much arrogance for you to be a centrist, and frankly, judging from how many times you've advertised this competition, you want it too much. Centrists are secure in who they are, they don't need the world to tell them who they are. They don't need acceptance, they don't need GLINKS. I know you like to think of yourself as "us nice pragmatic people here in the center" and how nice it is to be in the "middle majority," but its really just your confused narcissim and desire to be accepted that is misguiding you. In that light, I voted for Gun Toting Liberal.
Libbyterian: Judging only by your comment, my guess is that you aren't much of a centrist, (or libertarian for that matter).While I've never thought of the good professor was authoritarian because she expresses her opinions forcefully, I can see how someone who yearns for authoritarian leadership of the right type could misinterpret strong opinions as commands.
I hear "Run Rudy Run" quite often from you, yet you then tear into Bill and Hillary about his affairs and her calculated nature.Um, Rudy Giuliani IS a centrist, at least inasmuch as his positions are a mix of liberal and conservative ones.Like a right-winger would ever get elected mayor of New York? Please.
Apologies for the double post. I'd be happy to take credit for TMV's late surge but I think it belongs elsewhere.
Yes, I imagine that the Samoan vote has been hot and heavy these past couple of nights.
I don't think there's room to criticize supporters of other blogs for voting multiple times on different machines, even if that's happening, based on the fact that there are supporters of this blog who have said they're doing the same.I just went back to yesterday's "vote" thread and finally said something about that, which I should have done yesterday (and it's been bothering since then that I didn't, right away).This is just an internet contest, a small thing in the scheme of things. It's symbolic, that's all, and of no more import.Well, I'm into symbolism as much as the next guy. And the way this whole thing has played out has left me feeling a little sickened and just a little more disillusioned.So here's my big symbolic gesture! I will no longer vote for anyone in any category whatsoever. Whoo hoo! Big f'n deal.I'll read what and who I like, for whatever reasons, and even if they "hate" each other, or whatever.That's the only damn vote that counts, anyway.
Yikes! I think I can say "sore loser," to answer your earlier question.JSF's comment is, I think, typical of your pristinely centrist audience.There's a difference, by the way, between being personally a centrist and running a centrist blog. You may qualify for some particularly charitable definition of centrist personally, but this blog, when it isn't covering pop culture (which I think you do very well), is porn for instadittoheads.
I went to the voting page and attempted to vote for you using the well known "blink" method, but the computer didn't seem to understand. I hope this failure of the rest of the world to recognize the blinking language isn't biasing the results against you.
I'm more interested in the ratio between site meter 'hits' and votes cast. I'm not seeing a site meter in some blogs. One could generally speculate that TMV, given its approx. 2-1 lead over Althouse, should have roughly twice as many site meter 'hits' but that doesn't address multiple voters and their motives. I would imagine TMV only has 600-700K 'hits' and it seems incongruent that such a seldom visited site could generate so many favorable votes.
JSF's comment is, I think, typical of your pristinely centrist audience.JSF's comment indicates that he dislikes left-wingers. That you think this is inconsistent with being a centrist is somewhat amusing. I suspect that, like many on the blogospheric left, you identify "centrist" as "halfway between Nancy Pelosi and Joe Lieberman".vw: cupke (without trans-fats!)
Yeah, it looks like a rout. Yesterday Althouse was ahead by about 200 votes. Yet today TMV is ahead by 2200. Go figure.I only hope Miss Ann stays true to the old fashion blog style and keeps her site personal...as opposed to converting it site into a group blog as a way to attract more visitors."And the sons of Pullman porters & the sons of engineers Ride their fathers' magic carpets made of steel Mothers with their babes asleep, rockin' to the gentle beat And the rhythm of the rails is all they feel Good mornin' America, how are you?"
One could generally speculate that TMV, given its approx. 2-1 lead over Althouse, should have roughly twice as many site meter 'hits'Or you could speculate that a large percentage of Althouse's hits are people who come here for the trainwreck factor, not because they think it's a good blog. (In my case, I'll save you from speculation - that's indeed why I come here.)
Goesh: What you need to know is that numerous bloggers who hate me have posted telling people to go vote for TMV. Before that happened I was way ahead.
The only way to account for 2000 votes in just 6 hours yesterday, doubling TMVs prior total, is bot voting and the equivalent of google-bombing.That is, now it's bullshit.
No, the way to explain it is here, here, here, here, here, and here, among others. You may disagree with their campaign, but I doubt the vote totals have anything to do with bot-voting.
quimby,That won't explain 2K votes in 6 hours. No way.Derve,The difference between your comments and a colonoscopy is that the latter often comes with anesthesia.
Pogo: look, anything's possible, but I certainly think those sites get a large enough combined readership to generate that many votes. I forgot to add this...Atrios alone has a large enough readership to generate those numbers of votes.
Quimby10 is undoubtedly right. I only meant to just tease Doyle here. (On the other thread, I said I was probably wrong.) Pogo, if you are relying on my memory for that number, I would recommend you do not. It was my impression, yes, and caused my flight of fancy but I'd hate to have it waved around as evidence of anything. And even if it were true, there is nothing wrong with it under the rules, yet another reason to let it go. The conversation is getting somewhat unseemly IMHO and I feel some responsibility for its direction.I'm sorry that anyone took me that seriously and I apologize for mentioning anything to everyone concerned.
I forgot to add that I sincerely apologize to Ann. Based on what I've seen happen before, Ann will get blamed for my remarks and the responses to them, as if she wrote them herself. I hope not.
Re: "Funny how you brought that procedure up..."The similarities are remarkable, really.Ronin, You didn't conceive that idea. I voted at 5:45 pm. yesterday at work, and then 6 hours later at home. In that short interval, there were 2000 more votes for TMV. That does not happen by GOTV campaigns. BS. It's a bot program. Not against the rules, either, just more bullshit to ignore.
OK Pogo, thanks.
"...how would you go about confirming those allegations ..."Colonoscopy, of course.
hat you need to know is that numerous bloggers who hate me have posted telling people to go vote for TMV. Before that happened I was way ahead.I don't hate you. I come for the unintentional self-parody."I was ahead until people started voting against me."
1) Ann Coulter is not a centrist2) Rudy Giuliani is not a centristRudy Giuliani is a "big government conservative" - his views on State power are in line with Bush, his views on foreign policy are in line with Bush - whose not a Christian Conservative (though he'll pretend to be, and might as well be since he won't veto any GOP legislation, nor would he appoint judges differently), and supports low taxes but is inconsistent on spending (see New York budget when he was mayor).In other words, he's functionally George W. Bush. Or at least, he would be as President. Ann is a Bush apologist, who realizes its probably insane to cheerlead for him, but makes irrational arguments that the other side is worse, and thus shows where her allegiences are.
That does not happen by GOTV campaigns. BS. It's a bot program.Proof by repetition. Convincing stuff.
Of course Ann Coulter isn't a centrist. She's a pundit for the religious right/social conservatives.The main difference with Rudy, unlike the current President, is his ability to lead--a quality this country and the GOP desperately need. Bush fumbled the ball for a multitude of reasons...but what stands out most is his inept leadership. Hell he can't even stand by his own "Bush Doctrine." And another plus for Rudy is he won't be beholden to the RR/SC.
Re: "Proof by repetition."Ah, from the master of perseveration himself.
I am amazed that people have so much time to devote to hating someone on the Internet. Gee.. kill my wife, attack my country, steal my fortune I can see it. But letting someone else think for you, and to form an opinion based on a very incomplete analysis much less to waste your time trolling around cyberspace for the really stupid reasons you people provide, is unexplainable. Get a freakin' life.
Ah, from the master of perseveration himself.Cite please.
Rudy Giuliani is a "big government conservative" - his views on State power are in line with Bush, his views on foreign policy are in line with BushRudy, like Bush, is obviously a conservative on foreign policy.But your observation that he shares similar views on state power to those of Bush presumes that Bush's views are conservative. Bush's views on the proper scope of state power are those of a New Deal Democrat -- that the state has not only the right, but the *duty*, to meddle in every aspect of American life in order to "improve" things.Then there are the social issues, where Rudy is so far to the left of the Republican Party that the conventional wisdom is that, despite being one of the most popular politicians in America, he's got no chance of winning the Republican nomination.
Ann Althouse said... Goesh: What you need to know is that numerous bloggers who hate me have posted telling people to go vote for TMV. Before that happened I was way ahead.Beautiful. You, who loves to pick blog fights at which others routinely get the better of you, pick a blogfight which finally costs you something that you want when and all you can do is whine about "bloggers that hate you" endorsing someone else after you yourself spent days begging yout pathetic readership yo voate for you?No one hates you Ann, they find you comical and ridiculous
Blogjam2020:Thanks for proving my point. That didn't take long.
quimby10 said..."No, the way to explain it is here, here, here, here, here, and here, among others. You may disagree with their campaign, but I doubt the vote totals have anything to do with bot-voting."If you think of a bot as a mindless drone that unthinkingly and automatically does what it's told, I think that's a fairly accurate summation of the average reader of the blogs you cite...The left is looking for heretics. My party is (still) looking for converts. We don't mind dissent, and there's plenty of room for disillusioned liberals.
That is, now it's bullshit.Come now. It's always been bullshit.
Justin said..."Rudy Giuliani is not a centrist"He has a liberal view on social policy and a conservative view on fiscal policy. Practically by definition he is a centrist. And in any event, I don't know why anyone would take seriously someone whose blog is titled, as is Justin's, "Down With Bush." You're perfectly exemplifying Revenant's observationo that lefties think that the center is halfway between Nancy Pelosi and Joe Lieberman, Justin.
I have access to quite a number of computer labs. I could vote from each machine if I cared to. But I don't. That would set off the Wizbang cheater-meter, and oh, and I have a conscience. blogjam2020: No one hates you Ann, they find you comical and ridiculousYep. Please more crap from the attic posts when you get back.Apologies to you specualtors (time wasters) nattering on about an election while the new Congress has even been sworn in.
I would vote for you if I thought you were moderate but your writings prove otherwise. Also you tend to be a drama queen in order to attract attention to yourself.I do, though, enjoy your cultural interests (thanks for the Divine video) which is generally why I come here. You have the fag hag qualities that us mos like.
Re: The Jerk said "Cite please."That very post, Jerk, proves it.
If you think a bot was needed for this, you have no idea what level of readership Eschaton gets.
Justin said..."Rudy Giuliani is not a centrist"He has a liberal view on social policyExcept for that pesky contempt for civil liberties.
Boston70, I can understand how someone might consider Ann a liberal, given her membership in the Democratic Party, the fact that she has only voted for 2 or 3 Republicans in her life, her support of a woman's right to choose, her support of gay rights in general and marriage in particular, her support for the principle of academic freeedom and her position with regard to the Kevin Barrett controversy at UW, her support for affirmative action, her position on student disruptions of guest speakers on campus, and various other things.Would you like to share who on the list of nominees you did vote for (or consider genuinely moderate per your definition)?
ronin, as I mentioned before, there is a difference between Professor Althouse being a centrist herself and the blog being centrist. The message of the blog is clear and consistent: liberals are nasty, icky hypocrites whom you shouldn't support, even if you do often agree with them. That's a pro-conservative message, and one that seems rather transparently crafted to keep a steady flow of patronage from Instapundit - another blog that is clearly instrumentally pro-conservative, even if Reynolds himself expresses occasional non-conservative views.If I ran a blog dedicated to proving that Nancy Pelosi hates America and coddles terrorists, it wouldn't somehow magically become a centrist blog is I happened to believe, in my heart of hearts, that America needs universal healthcare. And it'd hardly be a centrist message to say "sure, health care would be nice - but it clearly wouldn't be worth it to vote for an America-hater like Pelosi." That message, "you should vote GOP regardless of how you feel about health care," is actually more pro-GOP than the message that you should only vote for them if you oppose a single payer system.Professor Althouse often at least pretends to wonder why so many people in the liberal blogosphere dislike her so much. It's this: the cheap, fake above-the-fray nonpartisan pose she takes. She seems like she should be too smart for that. So either she actually isn't that smart, or she's willing to dole out BS for prominence by way of glinking. Neither seems like something to be proud of.
Except for that pesky contempt for civil liberties.Accompanied by that pesky lack of examples on your part?
If Rudy Giuliani doesn't qualify as a centrist, then I'm at a loss at to who the hell would. Who has an R after their name who would fit that bill and, just to be fair, who will an D behind their's would qualify as a centrist?Lieberman certainly fits that label right? Who else?I'm just saying this Stalinesque hunt for some made-up, elusive purity test is creepy.Also, one of the things I completely do not understand is impoliteness. I disagree vehemently with many of Professor Althouse's opinions (since I'm an evil, theocratic, conservative "Christianist." But I would never treat anyone the way some of you do.What I wonder is: does the relative anonimity of the internet free you up to be the worst versions of yourselves or are you this nasty, hateful, and dismissive in your face-to-face interactions with people as well?
As I said on an earlier post...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 adults. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.
That very post, Jerk, proves it.That you can't back up what you assert? Yes it does.
What you need to know is that numerous bloggers who hate me have posted telling people to go vote for TMV. Before that happened I was way aheadYou are such a whiny little baby, Anne! For Christ's sake, grow up and show some dignity. You're an embarrassment to the lawyer profession.
sohei: Thank you for demonstrating your lawyerly attention to detail, particularly one so obvious to even the most casual observer of this site: it is "Ann" not "Anne."What was that you were saying about people who can't spell on your own blog?
Come now ronin and JSF. admin just posted a polite, lengthy explanation of the blogospheric left's "inexplicable" animostiy towards the hostess here, and rather than engaging, you go on about how most liberal blog posters are nasty and irrational. This is silly: most blog posters of any stripe are nasty and irrational, which makes it all the more important to engage when the opportunity presents itself.So here's your opportunity: I agree with a lot of what admin said. I used to read Althouse pretty regularly, but my interest waned as time wore on and her commentary never shifted from "Liberal outlier X had done something bad, therefore liberals are bad." I mean, I already read that stuff at The Corner. After a while, irritation with it even turned me off of her ANTM blogging.I wound up here from a link from Unfogged, which though certainly populated by liberals doesn't have any political focus. And I have to admit, the co-ordinated lefty endorsement campaign _has_ been pretty entertaining. The idea of playing with this internet Homecoming ballot tickles the little subversive corner of my soul.And some good beside frivolity may come of it too. Unfogged's GOTV effort brought me back here for the first time in a while, and I've brought my olive branch with me.
Trevor - Did I say someone was nasty upthread here? I don't remember if I did. Please point out where I said that. Thank you in advance.As I've never read anything written by Ann Althouse that concluded that "liberals must be bad." I doubt you can produce a single post of hers that supports your contention. I didn't find admins response particularly constructive. The first paragraph is one long misstatement of fact. The second paragraph implies devious intent that I find as laughable as it is completely useless to debate.The third paragraph is a parody of what I wrote, and an inaccurate one at that. It also inaccurately portrays Althouse's blog. Can you direct me to a post wherein Ms. Althouse directs others to vote as she does? I can't recall one, but I can recall that she asked for opinions about how she should cast her own vote for governor.The concluding paragraph is rampant with snark such as this:It's this: the cheap, fake above-the-fray nonpartisan pose she takes. She seems like she should be too smart for that. So either she actually isn't that smart, or she's willing to dole out BS for prominence by way of glinking. Neither seems like something to be proud of. In conclusion, there is nothing there worth discussing unless one is interested taking seriously the snark, conspiracy theories, irrelevancies and inaccuracies contained therein.I have better things to do. I'm already late for a funeral.
Aside to my friends: No, not a family member. An old family friend. As they say, "When it rain it pours."
I'll say this: I don't know that Althouse has intentionally crafted her tone to get links from Reynolds - which is why I said it seems that way. There's an awful lot of Greenwald-bashing and "Instawife"-linking, and it's no secret that Reynolds is largely responsible for promoting Althouse to her current level of prominence. So I view it as a very, very suspicious correlation, and one that's bolstered by Althouse's apparent near-obsession with her traffic levels (see, for example, the Andrew Sullivan linking fiasco).But even if this correlation is just a coincidence, my initial complaint stands: this blog, even if it is run by a centrist, is instrumentally pro-conservative. Anyone who, for example, accuses Feministing of "breastblogging" and then celebrates being mentioned in creepy conservative masturbation fantasy Day by Day certainly seems to have a finger heavily on the scale in favor of conservatives.
I'm sorry to hear that ronin, you have my condolences. Perhaps another time, then.
"it's no secret that Reynolds is largely responsible for promoting Althouse to her current level of prominence."That isn't a "secret," it's an unfounded assertion. And one that is in some tension with quantifiable fact: According to sitemeter, while Instapundit is the second largest individual referrer to Althouse, it accounts for a whopping 9.5% of Ann's traffic. Her "current level of prominence" would seem to reflect the 90.5% of her traffic from non-Instapundit links, don't you think?"There's an awful lot of Greenwald-bashing"That comment is something of a Rube Goldberg Machine: it creates a complex and dense web of motivations to explain an extraordinarily simple action. I suspect that Ann bashes Greenwald because he's a moron, because he's one of the most atrocious writers in the blogosphere, and because he engages in constant and repeated hit-and-run attacks on her."this blog, even if it is run by a centrist, is instrumentally pro-conservative."The best people to judge whether this blog is conservative are conservatives. Would you accept that? I mean, if I visited your blog and proclaimed that it was "instrumentally pro-Maoist," you would presumably tell me to push off, because how can I, being a Republican, possibly determine with any accuracy just how left wing your blog is? Thus, your burden becomes to find a conservative who thinks that this blog is conservative. I would dearly love to bring Ann within the GOP's big tent, because I would dearly love to have more people like Ann in the GOP. Yet she stubbornly resists - which means, practically by definition, that she's a centrist. And a left-leaning one at that! The only possible way to conclude that this blog is pro-conservative is if you think Joe Lieberman is conservative. Which brings us back, once again, to Revenant's proposal that lefties think "halfway between Pelosi and Lieberman" is centrist.
That isn't a "secret," it's an unfounded assertion. And one that is in some tension with quantifiable fact: According to sitemeter, while Instapundit is the second largest individual referrer to Althouse, it accounts for a whopping 9.5% of Ann's traffic. Her "current level of prominence" would seem to reflect the 90.5% of her traffic from non-Instapundit links, don't you think?He didn't say it was a secret. He said it was no secret. A traffic snapshot doesn't tell much about what got her blog to prominence. A more fruitful line of inquiry would be to see what this blog's traffic numbers looked like before Instapundit-related events, such as a link from him or a stint where Prof. Althouse guest-blogged at Instapundit.The best people to judge whether this blog is conservative are conservatives.Why? You have the burden of demonstrating that this dubious assertion is true before shifting the burden onto admin to find a conservative who agrees with him/her.
That isn't a "secret," it's an unfounded assertion. And one that is in some tension with quantifiable fact: According to sitemeter, while Instapundit is the second largest individual referrer to Althouse, it accounts for a whopping 9.5% of Ann's traffic. Her "current level of prominence" would seem to reflect the 90.5% of her traffic from non-Instapundit links, don't you think?That line of reasoning is just laughable on its face. I said that she owed her prominence to patronage from Reynolds, not that she continues to receive the majority of her traffic from his links. The sitemeter statistics do illustrate that he is a dominant referrer. His referrals account for an amount of traffic several times higher than the traffic received by any other non-search engine referrer. But that's not even what I alleged.Althouse, of course, has readers who seek her out, and receives links from other blogs that monitor what she says. Both of those are incidents to prominence. That prominence, though, originated with Reynolds, as the sitemeter statistics blatantly show.If you look at her traffic history, you'll notice that she received more or less negligible traffic levels until July of 2004. What happened then? ohhhhh.So she began receiving regular patronage from Reynolds and made a name for herself, and that prominence accounts for her current traffic and link levels. Which is exactly what I asserted.Why would we trust conservatives to judge that this blog is conservative? The fiction that it isn't helps them immensely. Why should Ann's allies call her out on her conceit?Anyway, it's a shame that Professor Althouse, an enjoyable and insightful legal academic, as well as a funny and charming writer on cultural issues, has been reduced to playing jester in the court of Reynolds, a much lesser legal academic who never wrote a worthwhile sentence without a co-author (often the very talented, funny, and unfortunately bespectacled Brannon Denning). But hey, it's his fans who make her famous, and apparently that's what she wants. Time to prepare another kissass link to another dangerously unhinged Instawife post on male persecution.
Also, if I recall, Althouse's guest-blogging at Instapundit was that fall, which corresponds with her traffic growth. It's all there! Just follow the link simon provided, poke around, and cast the critical eye he's apparently unwilling to.
That prominence, though, originated with Reynolds, as the sitemeter statistics blatantly show.Well, of course that is true. Would Althouse have achieved prominence had Ann not done a guest stint at Instapundit? There is no way of knowing that. (IIRC, I started reading Althouse as a result of the first somewhat off-hand link from Instapundit. Looked around, liked what I found, and have been here ever since.)Hundreds of bloggers have been linked to by Glenn Reynolds.To me, the real question is:Why is this so seemingly all-important to you?
Trevor: The comments by admin and the jerk demonstrate why conversations like this are a complete waste of time. Stripped of the snark and other trappings, here are two people who just can't stand that someone else is a success.The idea that Althouse's success is entirely due to Instapundit is laughable. Obviously, there are many people like me who enjoy the mix of topics and general tone of discussion here.Those of us who like it around here don't really care whether other people don't, or why they don't. There are many blogs I do not enjoy reading. So I don't read them. I don't spend hours reading them looking for things to fault, I don't waste bandwidth trying to convert the readers to my opinion, and I wouldn't dream of directing invective at the proprietors of those blogs on their blogs. I truly pity trolls like Doyle, so filled with hatred and with nothing better to do than pick nits here. Anyone who believes that Althouse is a not "centrist blog" is certainly entitled to that opinion. Drop by and express it, if you feel the compelling need. But what is the point in arguing about it? There isn't one, particularly when so many of those "dropping in" obviously haven't read much of the blog at all.As far as I am concerned, Ann Althouse can, and does, take care of herself. Don't like what you find here? Take it up the proprietor. Don't like her response? Don't come back. Pretty simple, and obvious, to me.
Admin,I think Ronin implicitly beat me to the punch: "[h]undreds of bloggers have been linked to by Glenn Reynolds." You assert that "Reynolds is largely responsible for promoting Althouse to her current level of prominence," and support that assertion by suggesting that Althouse's traffic was negligible prior to her first instalanche. But that doesn't add up: Reynolds links to a lot of blogs, and yet, very few of those blogs have the sustained traffic that Althouse has. Even allowing that Althouse's traffic greatly increased as a result of those links, the sustained traffic - that is, her current level of prominence can't be explained just by instalanche: people stick around, and they don't do that because Instapundit says so, they stay because they enjoy and appreciate what Ann has to say. Reynolds could Instalance Ann twice a day, but if her blog wasn't worth reading, on its own merits, even those who clicked through wouldn't stay. Ann's prominence is a result of her own merits: came with the instalanche; stayed for the writing.Well, in any event, I suppose it's healthy to conclude on a point with which I emphatically agree with you: "Professor Althouse ... [is] an enjoyable and insightful legal academic, as well as a funny and charming writer on cultural issues."
It's definitely not the most important thing in the world. But it is hilarious to see Althouse get crushed after all her childish, petty taunting.Anyway, maybe I'll reconsider Althouse's even-handed centrist status when she starts decrying this anti-feminist breastblogger.
As far as I'm aware, Helen wasn't standing in front of Bill Clinton when that picture was taken. I mean, you did understand what the Valenti business was about, right? Or do you just buy the leftie spin that Ann's objection was about Valenti's breasts rather than the nexus between the pose, the presence of Clinton in the room, and the hypocrisy of self-described feminists wanting to be in the same room as Bill Clinton, let alone striking such a pose?
Thank you for the honest answer: you are here to insult, taunt, and disrupt. Frankly, admin, your opinion with regard to Althouse's supposed centrism, or lack of it, is unimportant and irrelevant (as is mine). In the same vein, what Ann Althouse blogs about, or doesn't blog about, is Ann Althouse's decision, not yours or mine. If you don't like it, I suggest that you find happiness in another more companionable place. If and when I cease enjoying it, I will do so as well.Whether you reconsider your opinion or not is of no interest to me. I doubt that anyone who regularly reads Althouse cares if you reconsider your opinion or not.
And even if TMZ wins, btw, it is victory without honor: the progeny of an orchestrated campaign to get Althouse back for perceived past slights. I'd be willing to bet real money that half the votes racked up by TMV are from people who have never read it before, will never read it in the future, and are only voting because they think it'll upset Ann. Which is ridiculous in any case, because it won't do that, but I suppose their behavior does reveal just how pathetically contemptible these people are, and beg the question of why any sane, decent human being would want to be associated with them.
There's no need to re-fight the whole Valenti saga, but Althouse didn't just fault Valenti for appearing as she did with Clinton. She faulted feministing for "breastblogging" because it showed a picture of a woman's torso in a t-shirt and its ironic logo featured the outlines of buxom women. The term "breastblogging" had nothing to do with Clinton - it's apparently just a word for the condemnable, anti-feminist act of showing a woman in a tightish t-shirt on a blog.So, anyway, I await the denunciation.BONUS LITTLE BIT OF ALTHOUSE'S SOUL DRIFTING AWAY: She also said "feministing" was a reference to fisting. That was a real high point of her career. If only she'd blinked it.
She also said "feministing" was a reference to fisting. That's priceless. Well, a Christianist is as a Christianist does.Now dance!
Simon,Your last comment is at once the funniest--and most pathetic--thing I have ever read. "Victory without honor"? "Only voting because they think it'll upset Ann"?Let me clue you in, Simon. Your Althouse-centric "blogosphere" is a dreary little place, inhabited by dreary little people. The "best blog"/class president contest is a meaningless little vanity play, and the outcome never meant anything. It took your heroine being drubbed to make you realize it, and you promptly burst into tears. And you doubted me when I said Althouse's followers were sycophants with their own, strange reasons for worshipping her?And for the record, before you trip over yourself accusing me of doing otherwise, I haven't cast a stinking vote, one way or the other. I cast my last votes for class president 30 years ago. Meanwhile, you probably have spent the last week being Rick Wakeman, voting on 10 keyboards at once for your precious "Ann."Get a freaking life, Simon, and get it fast."Victory without honor." Bwahahahaha!
"There's no need to re-fight the whole Valenti saga"Clearly you want to, since you brought it up! As to the rest of the noise - boring. The dogfight between pro-sex feminism vs. antipornography feminism is older than Valenti, and I think everyone who is going to have an opinion has basically made up their minds on it by now.As to the thing about whether Feministing was a portmanteu of "feminist sting" or "feminist fisting," I thought Ann was wrong about that, but it's hardly an absurd conclusion, and she was not the first or only blogger to draw that conclusion.
Well, Chuck, as ever, you're a one-man re-enactment of the Wizard of Oz: no heart, no brain, no courage, and no idea where you are.And if you'reseriously implying that you don't vote -- then who really cares what you think?
Yeah, Charles and Admin, what's wrong with you? Don't you know that nobody who poses for a picture with Clinton can ever be a feminist? It doesn't matter what that person does or doesn't do w/r/t womens' issues. Rape, workplace equality, abortion, none of those things matter. Clinton had sex with a subordinate a decade ago and that is the most important feminist issue ever and if you ever have a non-hateful thought about him you can't be a feminist.
Apparently, Simon, in addition to being a hysterical fop, you can't read. My reference to not casting a vote for class president in 30 years referred to my sarcastic reference to, "the "best blog"/class president contest is a meaningless little vanity play."Yes, I vote in real elections. Indeed, I have never missed one.Now go back to defending your heroine's "honor" in this majestic contest over best blog.
Simon - It seems to me that all's fair not only in love and war but weblog awards as well. If people don't like someone and actively encourage others to vote for someone else so that person doesn't get an award (or whatever), there is absolutely nothing shady about that. As you well know, many people will vote for and against a lot of things and people without a clue as to what they are about or who they are just because someone they like asks or suggests they do it. That's their choice.Simon, we all could argue with the people who come here to destroy the community until you ar blue in the face and it will not make one bit of difference. I suggest not answering their taunts, especially attempts to revive controversies that died months ago.
I stand by my reading of the derivation of the word "feministing." If it wasn't intended, it was obtuse not to see it (and decline to use it). The images on the blog reinforce my interpretation. It's an in-your-face attitude about sex. They can do it, but they should own up to what they are doing. It's the denial that bugs me, just like the denial that there was intentional posing in the picture. And the notion that we shouldn't criticize women is absurd. They aren't special fragile people.
"Clinton had sex with a subordinate a decade ago and that is the most important feminist issue ever..."Clinton undermined the work that had been done to get sexual harassment taken seriously. That was immensely important. When liberals gave him a pass for it, they demonstrated that the interests of the Democratic party were more important than feminism. I hold him responsible for that. Why don't you?
I forgot to add, Simon, that what those blogs are doing is a perfect example of how well negative campaigning works and why so many people engage in it. The results thus far speak for themselves, I think, don't you agree?
Can I be the treasurer of the Ann Althouse Sycophant Club, then?I'll admit it. Despite diagreeing with Professor Althouse 40% of the time, I think she's awesome and I don't a cracking crap what y'all think about that.
When liberals gave him a pass for it, they demonstrated that the interests of the Democratic party were more important than feminism.I have heard you say this before, but I wish you would expand on that.What do you think liberals should have done?And which liberals were those that should have done that? All liberals? Male liberals? Female liberals? Jewish liberals? Poor liberals? Rich liberals? Young liberals? Elderly liberals? Gay liberals? Liberals for gay marriage? Welfare liberals? Liberals with orphan drug diseases? Liberals very interested in stem cell research? Liberals very interested in the environment? Liberals for evolution and science? What would you have had liberals do, and which liberals should have done that?Please expand because it is an interesting concept.
"And even if TMZ wins, btw, it is victory without honor: the progeny of an orchestrated campaign to get Althouse back for perceived past slights."Hehehe! Yeah, if a right winger loses it must be because of an unfair, orchestrated campaign. Doesn't matter if the evidence suggests otherwise:Orchestrated campaign? TMC doesn't even stomp for voting at the Weblog Awards anymore! And many Bloggers who endorsed TMV cite the initial Ezra Klein endorsement, that came after TMV's Michael all but surrendered the race. Looks more like Althouse's "crush" comment provoced an unintended response that triggered some kind of snowball effect...No, TMV is winning fair and square. Just check the technorati page, showing the links to the 'Best Centrist Blog' page:There ARE bloggers linking to Althouse, too (that's an orchestrated campaign, Simon?), but the majority supports TMV. It's a lot of blogs, and influential ones. The effect is showing in the numbers, so accept it and don't embarass yourself by showing the sore loser.
Clinton undermined the work that had been done to get sexual harassment taken seriously.Even assuming that what Clinton did was sexual harassment, I believe Title VII remains on the books, sexual harassment lawsuits continue to be filed, and emlpoyers continue to educate their employees on the issue.That you think the private actions of one man can undermine all the effort to get sexual harassment taken seriously suggests that it may be you who does not take the issue very seriously.If it wasn't intended, it was obtuse not to see it (and decline to use it).Of course, the most natural reading of "Feministing" is that it is an attempt to create a verb form with "feminist" at the root. I.e. "We are feminists, and what we do is feministing." That's the most natural reading to people who don't have a pre-existing axe to grind, at any rate.just like the denial that there was intentional posing in the picture.I believe Valenti's words were "It's a picture. People pose." What a vehement denial!
Jerk: She admitted it, then pitched a fit because I went on to say, yes, you did. It's the subsequent denial that bugged me. The fact that there was a backtrack on the point is just more annoying.As to the name "Feministing," that was my original reading too, before I looked at the blog and saw all the in-your-face sexual imagery. And as I said, if it wasn't the original meaning, it should have been noticed and a reason to avoid the name, which is clunky and ugly anyway, and not a very good name at all.As to sexual harassment, what was profoundly damaging was the way women's groups came to the support of Clinton. They lost an immense amount of independence and credibility. The incident had a great effect on how people thought about sexual harassment because so much effort was put into minimizing what Clinton was doing (especially with respect to getting out of his lawsuit with Paula Jones). This defense of Clinton is still going on and still draining life out of the women's movement. The fact that you won't see that is just part of the ennervation that has taken place.
Does anyone else here believe that the jerk would wholeheartedly agree with Ann's point if the official being discussed were Newt Gingrich or Bob Packwood?
As to sexual harassment, what was profoundly damaging was the way women's groups came to the support of Clinton. They lost an immense amount of independence and credibility. The incident had a great effect on how people thought about sexual harassment because so much effort was put into minimizing what Clinton was doing (especially with respect to getting out of his lawsuit with Paula Jones). This defense of Clinton is still going on and still draining life out of the women's movement.So is it liberals you are upset with or feminist groups you are upset with?All feminist groups or just some?What about eco-feminists? What about eco-feminists-economists-interested-in-trade? In your point of view, must all liberals walk in lockstep? Must all feminists walk in lockstep?Can feminists see past the narrow issues of feminism and support someone that seems flawed but genuinely progressive?Can feminists of different ages find differences in what they believe is fundamental to feminism and still be allowed in the Althousian world of feminism?Can feminists disagree with you on goals, strategy, and implementations and still be labeled a feminist?Was it feminist of you to slap Valenti down over her choice of clothes and how she appeared in a photograph?As a feminist yourself, have you ever supported legal decisions that seemed the right decision even though they seem to oppose the cause of feminism?Why did you earlier in this thread use the word liberals when you meant feminists?
Is it true there were no national feminist spokesman that took what you felt was the appropriate response towards Clinton?The majority of Americans believe we should pull out of Iraq, but if I understand your position, you think this is a mistake. Have the majority of Americans lost credibility in your eyes as being pro-freedom? Pro-making-America-safer? Is it possible they are both of these things but they measure the current status and effort differently than you?The majority of Iraqis want the US to leave. Have the majority of Iraqis become desirous of civil war, and anarchy?
The inquisition has begun, I see. The mandatory public criticism/self-criticism session has been rescheduled for tomorrow morning. Admission to the re-education camp for the indeterminate sentence remains subject to a satisfactorily abject apology for serving as a running dog for capitalist conservatism. We suggest packing lightly, however.
She admitted it, then pitched a fit because I went on to say, yes, you did.I believe the fit was actually pitched because you were using her image as fodder for cheap sex jokes.before I looked at the blog and saw all the in-your-face sexual imagery.All I can see is a parody of a truck mudflap and an ad for a t-shirt. Not really what I would call in-your-face sexual imagery. So I think all can agree that the conclusion that "Feministing" is a reference to "fisting" is strained at best.This defense of Clinton is still going on and still draining life out of the women's movement. The fact that you won't see that is just part of the ennervation that has taken place.No, I think the fact that I won't see that is due to the fact that nobody has ever pointed to any actual evidence that this has occurred. I tend to be skeptical of facially dubious and self-serving assertions, even more so when not a shred of evidence is supplied to support them. But that's just me.
Post a Comment