January 10, 2007

"Immersing myself in anti-Althousiana."

Not to obsess over BloggingHeads, but I was just going back to my Monday diavlog with Matt Yglesias and reading the comments. Down around comment #47, after a cascade of weird abuse by the sort of people you know love to abuse me, you get Gerald Hibbs saying:
Wow, when you lefties issue a fatwa you really stick to it. Following Ann across the Internet urging people to ignore her. She really must be doing something right. I think it's the fact that she doesn't use words like "rethuglicans" or call Bush "Chimpy McHitler" that really gets under your skin.
Then someone named Tubbuc responds:
Mr. Hibbs, I spent several hours last night reading Ms. Althouse's blog and tracking down the recent attacks on her character and intelligence. Her blog betrays no hint that she is any kind of "conservative" and my browser history shows that while immersing myself in anti-Althousiana I visited NRO, Reason, the Volokh conspiracy and several other rightwing outlets. What gives? Am I missing something?

Well, Tubbuc, sometimes the best answer is musical:



ADDED: Glenn Reynolds:
"ANTI-ALTHOUSIANA?" I think when the haters become a genre, you've made it!

Tee hee. Tubbuc's going to be so mad. He coined the word and -- I see now -- he's actually one of the haters. Oops. Sorry, Tubby.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

How bizarre. I had just decided to start blogging, and had chosen that as my blog's name. Synchronicity.

Ron said...

Is Althouse "Ms. Blonde" ala Reservoir Dogs?

When you start to argue on Bloggerheads next time, start with "Have some fire, scarecrow!"

Meade said...

Too funny.

Anonymous said...

When everyone in the world is telling you that you are an arrogant twit, what does it say about yourself when you think that just means you must be right?

Is there another alternative that you are overlooking?

What is the simplest explanation?

If this means you are in the middle, and somehow non-partisan, and somehow objective, and containing not a bone of bias in your body, then why do you and your commenters constantly object to the MSM?

Isn't your position identical to the position of so many of our "best" reporters in the MSM? The ones that think that just because they don't vote means they must be objective? The ones that think that because left and right excoriates them, they must be in the middle?

What is the simplest explanation that fits the known facts?

Ann Althouse said...

EnigmatiCore: "How bizarre. I had just decided to start blogging, and had chosen that as my blog's name. Synchronicity."

For a minute there, I thought you were calling your blog Tubbuc!

Ron: I'm a danger to everyone's ears.

Reality Check: What's all this repetition of the word "objective"? Where do I go around making a big deal of how "objective" I am? You're just making crap up... or repeating things you're read about me elsewhere. That's really lame.

Too Many Jims said...

I confess I often don't know why I came here. Further, while the folks to the left of me are clowns, those to my right are not jokers. Accordingly, I really think the song is not appopriate at all. Blog about the things I want you to; in the manner I want you to dangitall.

Fatmouse said...

"When everyone in the world is telling you that you are an arrogant twit, what does it say about yourself when you think that just means you must be right?"

But reality check, since all the twit claims are coming from the left, what does that say? Or do you only consider those who entirely agree with you to be "the world?"

"If this means you are in the middle, [...] then why do you and your commenters constantly object to the MSM?"

At long last, someone finally admits that the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal, thus objecting to it makes one a rethuglican. :)

Fatmouse said...

"When everyone in the world is telling you that you are an arrogant twit, what does it say about yourself when you think that just means you must be right?"

But reality check, since all the twit claims are coming from the left, what does that say? Or do you only consider those who entirely agree with you to be "the world?"

"If this means you are in the middle, [...] then why do you and your commenters constantly object to the MSM?"

At long last, someone finally admits that the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal, thus objecting to it makes one a rethuglican. :)

SteveR said...

Here's my thoughts about the "middle". Like the survey, if 20 questions are used to define right vs left, right agree on most of the 20 and left agree on most of the twenty. Folks in the middle could theoretically *disagree* on all twenty and still be in the middle.

So in a digital world (1 or 0, black or white, postitive or negative, etc), simple minded people are confounded by complexity and unwilling to invest any effort. The reaction to not being provided with a simple way to evaluate someone, is hostile.

BTW I am going to make an effort this year to be a better speller with my comments. FWIW

Anonymous said...

reality check: commenters object to the MSM because their work is shoddy and displays obvious bias. Many of the commenters here would object to a different or opposite bias as well. You may find that impossible, but it was in fact the left-bias of the media that caused me to examine the conservative stances more closely and has moved me rightward.

You assume that because someone complains about the MSM they must be right wing. Is there no alternative explanation? What we be the simplest explanation of that?

Anonymous said...

Good answer, Ann. Looking for an answer of my own ("Which guy is Gerry Rafferty?"), it seems that none of them is. The song is sung by Joe Egan, and co-writer Rafferty had left the band by the time the album was released. (He returned in time for the second LP, Ferguslie Park.)

When someone thinks "everyone in the world" agrees with what he hears in his own little echo chamber, what does that say about his expertise concerning this "reality" concept?

Almost as funny as the guy who can discern intelligence by the accent apparent when someone speaks English.

Pogo said...

Leftists rebuke Althouse because she is double-plus ungood. She fails to agree with the Left to be at war with Bush (and it has always been at war with Bush).

And therefore, as per Orwell, the enemy of the moment always represents absolute evil. As Althouse only exists in web consciousness, it must soon be annihilated. For the good of The Party.

JohnK said...

As much as I disagree with you on so many things and as sorry as the crying episode is, even I have to admit that anyone who manages to piss off both Reason and the nutroots blog sphere in two weeks time, might be doing something right.

David said...

Every once and awhile Ann post a link to a political survey that tries to identify your politics, usually on a 2-D grid. She post hers so we can compare our politics with hers. Iw ould take these tests and would notice that on the libertarion axis we would be equal, she would be slightly to the left on the left-right axis and I would be equally just a bit to the right. I am always surprised by the particular animus Prof. Althouse gets from the left and I can only assume that they think she should walk lock step with them. They find her free thinking very annoying. I also think that free thinking females in general drive them nuts, don't women know their place?

By the way, the right is not entirely free of this. But I do not see it anywhere near as nasty as that from the left.

Tim Sisk said...

Assistant Village Idiot: I laughed when I saw your "name". I think I qualify for that position. Very clever. I'm envious.

Anonymous said...

Ann –

Your bristling at the term “objective” is a weak copout. How about “independent”? You surely take pride in being free from the scratchy dogma of either political party. Problem is, you’re only as independent as an InstaBushFollower can be, which is not very. On issues of national security and the rule of law (by that I don't mean gay marriage) you're hopelessly wrong. You’ve swallowed countless lies and still either haven’t noticed or don’t mind.

I don’t care what the hardcore right has to say about you. If they find you a hack for different reasons, maybe it’s to their credit.

Anonymous said...

Howdy Ann,

Always glad to come to the aid of a fair lady (not that you need it :-)

And an Instalanche by proxy! I be famous. Now if I can just get one for my blog I can die happy.

Again I say, why isn't there an emoticon for begging? Not truly a language until you have that. ;-)

Pogo said...

Doyle speaks double-plus-good truth. Althouse is Goldstein, and must be denounced as a thought-criminal.

Doyle's Ingsoc is correct.

Anonymous said...

Here we see more evidence of the "heretic" theory of current politics, as in "The right looks for converts while the left looks for heretics".

I see Prof. ALthouse as similar to Joe Lieberman, whose 90% liberal voting record was 10% less than the netroots Star Chamber could allow. Watch out for friends bearing icepicks, Ann!

dklittl said...

By the way, the right is not entirely free of this. But I do not see it anywhere near as nasty as that from the left.

That's so silly and hypocritical. This talking point of the righty commenters on this blog just doesn't play out. See the excessive criticism of Gerald Ford once the Woodward tapes came out, David Brock or John Cole at Balloon Juice or the fact that RINO is a trademarked word that is used to smear anyone who doesn't fall in line with Republican world view. You can defend Ann from the left if you want, but please don't be so disingenuous as to act as if many of you from the right haven't done any different. Ann just doesn't claim to be from your "tribe" as one might put it.

kcom said...

"If this means you are in the middle, and somehow non-partisan, and somehow objective, and containing not a bone of bias in your body, then why do you and your commenters constantly object to the MSM?"

Who ever said being in the middle was non-partisan? Being in the middle is a political position. It might not get a lot of respect from those hard core types on either end of the spectrum, but it's a political position and in no sense meant to be non-partisan. It's non-crazy, perhaps. It's actually thinking for yourself on each individual issue and sometimes agreeing with one side and sometimes agreeing with the other or sometimes thinking both sides are crazy. But it's not apolitical or objective in any sense that you're referring to, so that's a strawman.

Now you can see how a person like that can decide the MSM is doing a crappy job at the same time they don't go for every conservative position or proposal out there. It's because they are in the middle, but not on the sidelines.

kcom said...

"If this means you are in the middle, and somehow non-partisan, and somehow objective, and containing not a bone of bias in your body, then why do you and your commenters constantly object to the MSM?"

Who ever said being in the middle was non-partisan? Being in the middle is a political position. It might not get a lot of respect from those hard core types on either end of the spectrum, but it's a political position and in no sense meant to be non-partisan. It's non-crazy, perhaps. It's actually thinking for yourself on each individual issue and sometimes agreeing with one side and sometimes agreeing with the other or sometimes thinking both sides are crazy. But it's not apolitical or objective in any sense that you're referring to, so that's a strawman.

Now you can see how a person like that can decide the MSM is doing a crappy job at the same time they don't go for every conservative position or proposal out there. It's because they are in the middle, but not on the sidelines.

Elliott said...

Here are some ideas that are "in the middle". I think all gays should be forcibly converted to Christianity and then marry their partners. I think that we should draft all Muslims in the US and send them to Iraq to fight. I think that we should invade Canada and relocate the U.S. federal government to Toronto in case global warming is real. I'm sure that these are all reasonable and wonderful notions because noone supports them.

Anonymous said...

Lieberman a liberal. Ha!

Then what the hell is Russ Feingold?

Sorry, that was pretty funny. That goes to show how far right this country, or specifically the punditshere has gone. After all, they decide who is a liberal, and who is not.

There is virtually no difference between Joe Lieberman and every other whacked out neo-con like Bill Kristol.

TallDave said...

Having similar opinions to AA, I'm always struck that generally in the blogosphere one has disagreements in principle with the right, but "fights" with the left.

Conservatives tend to try to try to make rational arguments (which, while often wrong, are at least arguments), while leftists tend to simply brand people they disagree with as bad or irrational people (e.g. Atrios' "wanker of the day" or Kos' constant obscenity-based descriptions of people he disagrees with).

While some of this probably stems from the oft-measured that conservatives are generally happier people, I think to some extent it reflects different ways of experiencing reality: idea-based versus feeling-based.

vbspurs said...

Hang on with the Althousiana!

In the Imposters thread, I posted "Pax Althousiana" and suddenly, it's term to describe a hating genre.

I need a ruling on this matter from Ruth Anne -- did the term exist before I used it?

Coincidentally, in response to an ASX reply (and I see he is there commenting on Ann in that Tubbuc thread).

If not, I'm calling myself the originator of the coinage.

My God, what depths have I sunk.

Cheers,
Victoria

salvage said...

You're not "hated" you're far too absurd to hate. No one says “I hate Ann Althouse” they say “Wow is she stupid.”

But since you’re thicker than the unnatural offspring of an elephant and whale I guess you’ll never fully get that.

But if you had any that would be part of your charm.

WildMonk said...

I think "Doyle" is my favorite for the obliviousness of his comment that:

"Problem is, you’re only as independent as an InstaBushFollower can be, which is not very...You’ve swallowed countless lies and still either haven’t noticed or don’t mind."

In other words, agree with Doyle or else you can't be independent!

EricP said...

But reality check, since all the twit claims are coming from the left, what does that say? Or do you only consider those who entirely agree with you to be "the world?"

Nixon/Althouse can't possibly have won/a centrist opinion. I don't know a single person who voted for him/agrees with her.

The comments should allow the strike tag - it would make this sort of thing easier. BTW, the quote is by Pauline Kael in the New Yorker Magazine in 1972 and perfectly demonstrates the leftist problem, too many live in segregated worlds where everyone thinks the same. Anyone who doesn't think like them becomes the "other".

sonicfrog said...

When everyone in the world is telling you that you are an arrogant twit, what does it say about yourself when you think that just means you must be right?

When your world view is so limited that you think those who echo your feelings and agree with you consists of everyone in the world, what does it say about yourself when you think that just means you must be right?

(forgive the clumbsy nature of that senence, it's just theway it came out)

sonicfrog said...

And an Instalanche by proxy! I be famous. Now if I can just get one for my blog I can die happy.

Hell, I'd be happy for a reader! :-)

Anonymous said...

I agree with KCOM. Being in the middle is a political choice as much as being on the extreme left or right. This continual pigeon-holing of people as "right" or "left" because they don't agree with you on your pet issues is just ridiculous.

If I agree that abortion should be legal, that makes me a lefty in some people's eyes. Where does it put me on the right/left scale if I believe that stem cell research should be legal but should not be funded by tax dollars? If I feel that we must continue in Iraq, that makes me a righty and Bushclone in other people's eyes. That is too one dimensional for me and doesn't allow for nuances of political thought.

This is a much better test of political positioning (IMHO) because it allows more than one dimension.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

I end up as a fiscal conservative and libertarian on social issues. In fact....my little dot lands right on that of Milton Friedman (one of my favorite thinkers)

Zeb Quinn said...

The simple truth is that Althouse is just one little "McChimpyBu$Hitler lied and people died" away from being brilliant and brilliantly golden in the eyes of the haters.

Anonymous said...

Hard core ideologues are, in general, the most intellectually uncurious of pseudo-intellectuals. They like information that supports their point of view, and will flog it to death. Information that challenges their point of view, they don't want to hear about it, and their first instinct is to interrogate the motives of the person who had the audacity to present it to them.

Doyle's post--classic of the form. Boiled down, virtually all his posts say: "Liberals! Stop reading this blog! She voted for Bush!" He's your minder from the left.

I like Ann's site mostly because she posts information that could cut either way, or that different thoughtful people could disagree about, for the apparent purpose of getting a discussion going. A classic professor gambit in the old sense of professor, before the word was redefined to mean "tenured whack job."

Andrew Shimmin said...

I had no idea Charlie Manson was such a competent drummer. Weird. But I always love a bottleneck guitar. Played with a real bottleneck!

ronbo said...

Wait, these are the moderated comments? Wow.

Anonymous said...

Doyle said, "I don’t care what the hardcore right has to say about you. If they find you a hack for different reasons, maybe it’s to their credit."

Congratulations, Prof. Althouse! By providing the left and right with a common enemy, you've done the impossible: having the left and right find common ground! Brilliant! Of course, that was your plan all along, wasn't it? ;)

James Williams said...

I regard Prof. Althouse as definitely left of center. I'm much to the right of her in regards to social policy, but that is OK. People on the left appear to not like those who are moderately on the left.

Anonymous said...

Where do I go around making a big deal of how "objective" I am?

Well we know you are proud of how non-partisan you are, and we know how proud you are that you are right dead center in the middle of the spectrum of the nations thoughts, and we know (I think) that you find that people that believe strongly in things to be weird.

If I mistakenly concluded that you believed you were objective in this, than my apologies.

I stand corrected and now understand that you realize and are proud of your non-objective stance on the issues.

Is it fair to say that you are now proudly claiming to be biased? So you are a non-objective, biased, non-partisan? No wonder everyone says that deep down you are shallow.

Paco Wové said...

"The simple truth is that Althouse is just one little "McChimpyBu$Hitler lied and people died" away from being brilliant and brilliantly golden..."

Oh, no, not that simple. First, she must repent; then she must do penance by denouncing Chimpy McDeath and the rethuglikkkans for, say, a year or so. Only then will she have regained sufficient purity of essence.

Todd said...

"Immersing myself in anti-Althousiana."

Okay Ann, now you're just showing off.

vbspurs said...

Ronbo said:

Wait, these are the moderated comments? Wow.

Funny, isn't it.

And puts paid the completely ridiculous idea that this blog is sheepsville.

If you even challenge the Kossites a little (or God forbid, on Atrios), you get deleted faster than you can say "I went to Nancy-Pelooza and all I got was this lousy t-shirt".

Cheers,
Victoria

Anonymous said...

If you even challenge the Kossites a little (or God forbid, on Atrios), you get deleted faster than you can ...

WRT Atrios, that is completely untrue. WRT Kos, I have no experience, but I highly doubt your report, especially considering how full of it you are with regard to Atrios.

Stop lying.

Pogo said...

Re: "Stop lying."

Your reality check just bounced, bud. Kos and Atrios and other lefty blogs are rigorous deleters. I don't care if you don't "believe" it, and don't bother demanding "proof". Please.

You're part of this wierd Anti-Althouse project, an attempt to cow someone on the center-left. And like with Lieberman, you can't quite get the job done. Ultimately, it's a dull routine. I mean, why don't you give the left hand a rest, dude, it must be all cramped up by now?

vbspurs said...

You're part of this wierd Anti-Althouse project

Anti-Althousiana, Pogo, anti-Althousiana.

And boo, the Youtube vid is no longer available.

Cheers,
Victoria

Pogo said...

Victoria,

Be careful that AlGore doesn't claim authorship!

Pogo said...

P.S. One-hit wonders The Wierd Anti-Althouse Project, whose 1974 smash "My Heart Is Left In San Fransisco" captured the Bay area charts for six weeks that summer.

They broke up when lead singer, a young Cindy Sheehan, started her own art-rock band, "Cindy Stardust", which never recorded an album, succumbing to artisitic differences (curious, for by then she was working alone).

vbspurs said...

P.S. One-hit wonders The Wierd Anti-Althouse Project, whose 1974 smash "My Heart Is Left In San Fransisco" captured the Bay area charts for six weeks that summer.

They broke up when lead singer, a young Cindy Sheehan, started her own art-rock band, "Cindy Stardust", which never recorded an album, succumbing to artisitic differences (curious, for by then she was working alone).


Utterly, bloody genius.

Cindy Stardust, LOL!

Cheers,
Victoria

Knemon said...

"Doyle's Ingsoc is correct."

Nonono, it's, "Doyle bellyfeel Ingsoc."

"People on the left appear to not like those who are moderately on the left."

You mean like how the Communists called Weimar Social Democrats "Social Fascists?"

Like that song "Love Me, I'm a Liberal?"

Liberal-as-curse-word was a leftist thing before the right picked up on it.

Revenant said...

When everyone in the world is telling you that you are an arrogant twit, what does it say about yourself when you think that just means you must be right?

I like how you equate the leftie blogosphere with "everyone in the world", there.

If this means you are in the middle, and somehow non-partisan, and somehow objective, and containing not a bone of bias in your body, then why do you and your commenters constantly object to the MSM?

Because the MSM is shrill, partisan, and subjective?