March 28, 2007

Things I'm not talking about.

As you may have noticed, that Bloggingheads episode I did with Garance Franke-Ruta -- did you know I came up with the title "This Time It's Personal"? -- attracted a fair amount of attention yesterday. Many characters in the leftosphere used the two-minute segment where I get mad to rake over the old flame war that I spent those two minutes saying I wouldn't be dragged into talking about again.

I may be sorry I got as mad as I did -- but I think showing some anger in an argument is not a huge deal. There's so much repression and passive aggression out there. It's so easy to process your emotions with those grim tools. It's what we usually do. The notion that it's crazy to display emotion is.... crazy.

But I'm not sorry I didn't go back into the old flamewar, either in the video, where I was tweaked about it -- and reacted extravagantly -- or when all those blogs goaded me about it yesterday. So, have fun grinding over the old times amongst yourselves.

113 comments:

Doyle said...

I may be sorry I got as mad as I did

You should be sorry you got mad at all. You asked: Why are they so mean to me? And she gave one possible, perfectly valid answer.

You're not going to get it, though, are you?

George said...

Anger is good. Sometimes.

If I were doing a TV interview with a law professor and knew the topics in advance and had reason to know her background, I would prepare.

It was clear from watching the segment that the Harvard-educated editor of the obscure think-mag was unprepared, and, thanks to her hubris, she got pole axed.

I do think, however, Professor, that you have a tendency to focus on flash 'n' trash issues, like auto-erotic asphysication and tempting tarts in Ts, that attract, shall we say, a certain element.

It's one thing to drive up your numbers with tarts, it's another thing altogether to rely on them for on-going sustenance. A little Marshmallow Fluff goes a long way in my diet.

Doyle said...

Have you apologized to her personally, by the way?

Internet Ronin said...

Who died and left you in charge, Doyle? ;-) Have you apologized privately and personally to everyone you have insulted over and over again on this site, particularly our hostess? Would you please produce notarized copies of your apologies so that we can verify them? (Ask a silly question...)

Trevor said...

Doyle's right.

It wasn't that you got angry. It was that you got angry over nothing. Or maybe you were just angry with yourself for being reminded that you can be just as nasty and vicious as you want to claim "the left" is to you.

Spin, spin, spin. The reason "that old flame war" is being dragged out is to give you an opportunity to actually apologize for degrading another woman and encouraging others to do the same.

Internet Ronin said...

Gee Trevor, I think the reason "that old flame war" is being dragged out is to give some people an opportunity to denounce, degrade, and with a little luck, silence a woman who does not hew to the official line as defined by those self-appointed guardians of proper blogging and feminist thought and encourage others to do the same. Spin. Spin. Spin.

james said...

I think it was hilarious when you say that you actually think you have more in common with liberals than conservatives.

Do you really think so many conservatives would post on your blog if that were true? That is illogical.

You play it cute by being the "progressive" conservatives can point to. You and Glenn Reynolds have arrived at a neat little manipulation of new media and have carved out niches for yourself that are neither here no there able to always be on the "clean" side of an issue.

Glenn made the mistake of actually writing something (his masterwork of geo-political strategy recommending the assassination of scientists in Iran) and you do something similar here hiding behind some sort of weird contrivance that the right is warm and loving and the left rabid and hateful. Do you even read other blogs? Hugh Hewitt is a big old softie!

If you were really a liberal you couldn't stomach the morons who cheer you on here.

I have to disagree with george and say that you do best when you comment on inanity and should probably dump the politics completely.

blackjimmy

Doyle said...

IR -

She can do what she wants. I'm just curious whether she really regrets it. It seems she only regrets that people are too repressed to realize how awesome it was when she terrorized some poor woman she'd never met over something she had nothing to do with.

J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
j said...

I'd never even heard of you before all of this, and the introduction via that clip wasn't exactly the best introduction. Unless you specifically stated that the boob thing was completely out-of-bounds from the outset, then how on earth can you be surprised that she made reference to it in response to "Why are bloggers nasty to me"? She didn't even ask your opinion on it and was moving on -- I never would have looked it up if you hadn't gone completely volcanic and shouted down the poor woman.

A very unflattering introduction, as you seemed to attack another blogger who instantly apologised and really looked quite shocked, but you decided to pummel her... And she really didn't deserve it.

Anger can be good sometimes, but it's also good to make sure that your anger is valid before really kicking off. When people start getting the idea that you like to shout people into submission no matter how ridiculous your own standing on the matter, that's when people stop taking you seriously.

And as was said above, an apology might be in order for that other blogger. Not in a political or "ceding ground" sense (yes, she's probably gotten more traffic than she's ever seen in her life due to this, but that wasn't the plan) -- just because after attacking another person groundlessly, it's the decent thing to do.

J. said...

She "tweaked" you?

"I’m not really aware of anything until this whole Jessica Valenti breast controversy, um ... so, I know that there was some grudges and hostility that came out of that ..."

That's tweaking?

Jason said...

I am only an occasional reader of blogs and, call me stuffy, but I tend to gravitate to serious debates about ideas and people who have access to a little wit. Going back over all the posts related to what you call a "flame war" I have to say that I think you were very out of line. You made some awful, widely speculative comments about this woman and her motivations. Many people who rightly took issue with it did so in a childish and insulting way and then you used their ugly reactions to take offense and label the whole thing a personal attack not worth discussing any further.

You seem fond of spotting rhetorical strategies meant to undermine opponents, so we need a term for making an insulting, dehumanizing comment waiting for the people you offend to behave grossly in response and then taking refuge behind a faux-high-minded victimization complex. The original offense, which in this case was yours, is lost in the hypocritical tut-tutting over how vicious everyone else is.

I offer ten dollars and a hardy-thank-you for the person who can give it an easy to remember label.

Internet Ronin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

Florence King has a great essay on this very subject called "The Republic of Nice." People are so afraid of being thought mean that they swallow their words, muddy up their conversations with qualifications, and react to events with babble about "healing" and "dialog". One of her great examples: The television news anchor who demanded of Joseph Hazelwood, Captain of the Exxon Valdex, "But did he ever apologize?"

j said...

Ronin, I'm not sure there's much merit in an "I've met terror, and you sir are no terror" exchange...

Surely shouting at someone for something they didn't do is worthy of reflection and a simple apology?

RogerA said...

Late as usual to the dust up yesterday, I tried to reconstruct it. Looks like most blogsophere dust ups: starts with a fairly small incident and escalates out of control with lots of things said and done that probably most folks will regret in the morning after a good nites sleep.

But one thing does continue to bother me: Somehow the idea that it is "wrong:" to get angry over something and express that anger. Why is it OK to express sadness by crying, but not express anger by some visible reaction? Life might be a lot easier if we send very unambiguous signals about how we really feel about things. Are we supposed to be dispassionate about things that are important to us? And yes, there are limits to how one expresses anger--but the idea we shouldnt flash or get momentarily upset is silly (IMO).

Internet Ronin said...

J: I think you will find that someone already apologized. What more do you think is necessary? Self-flagellation? ;-)

Ann Althouse said...

"you do something similar here hiding behind some sort of weird contrivance that the right is warm and loving and the left rabid and hateful. Do you even read other blogs? Hugh Hewitt is a big old softie!"

What you're missing is that I'm always talking about how other bloggers treat me, not something more general. I originally wrote this observation here, on January 31, 2005, after one year of blogging, and long before the blogger-Clinton lunch incident that some people like to say justifies the way I've been treated.

Doyle: Why not watch the whole episode? I apologize during the phone conversation. Also, you need to consider the material that I transcribed, which occurred at the beginning of the diavlog, in which Garance talks at length about her journalistic techniques. Maybe she wasn't using them at the point when I got mad, but I had reason to be alert that she would try to do things like that.

Internet Ronin: I'm glad you survived!

Internet Ronin said...

Florence King was a professional curmudgeon, and a good writer. (She wrote some of Molly Ivins best work, too, IIRC. ;-)

j said...

Anger and sadness and all the other emotions are perfectly valid on their own, but I think that's the purpose of an apology -- to let someone know that you regret putting them through something that you now realise was misplaced.

So the flare-up itself showed horrible touchiness and bad judgement, but it is what it is. And you wouldn't apologise to someone if you yelled at them and believe they really deserved to be yelled at. But this girl didn't tweak, didn't goad, and got her head bitten off. It'd be a bit decent to say "sorry".

Internet Ronin said...

J: Why are you ignoring the fact that Ann already apologized? In fact, she did so almost immediately on the telephone during the episode, as she has said repeatedly. Did you fast forward by that part? I'm confused (nothing new, I know, but still...)

Doyle said...

Why not watch the whole episode?

I know you apologized to her on the program, that's why I specified "personally." But you're right, I couldn't finish the episode because after your breakdown it was just unbearably awkward.

I had reason to be alert that she would try to do things like that.

Stone cold crazy.

RogerA said...

The power of words and phrases: seems to me that the "valenti breast thing," wasn't about breasts; rather, it was about a very interesting observation that self professed feminists apparently do not see the inconsistency of being feminists and comporting with a blatant philanderer: the "big dog" himself.

I stopped following the feminist movement after the radicals took over in the mid 1970s (Karen deCrow and her followers). Clearly feminism is in some sort of third iteration that I havent followed. If any first or second generation feminist thinks that President Clinton's behavior and the subsequent embrace and defense of the President behavior by some feminists isnt a contradiction, I don't know what is. Of course its easier to have that discussion by reducing it to a "breast controversy."

j said...

Ronin, thought we were talking about personal apology, rather than the apology at the end -- and then I was responding to roger's query about emotion and apology. So more theoretical than actually trying to force an apology.

Another great thing about apology is that most people don't really enjoy making them, so you tend to learn from mistakes. Maybe in future Ann will wait a little longer and be sure she's actually being attacked before hitting back so hard.

Internet Ronin said...

Well, J., it seems to me that an apology delivered over the telephone during the conversation itself is "personal." As they were the only two people on the telephone at the time, in fact, it is pretty hard to imagine it being anything else. Perhaps it wasn't phrased the way you considered sufficiently contrite (or abject), or perhaps you (and others) have a different definition of "personal." I don't know.

What I do know is that, if there was another, private apology that is none of my business, or yours. I think it is unseemly for others to press their personal values in that regard on someone else in order to further their public, more political, aims. So, I must conclude that what some people are demanding is nothing less than public self-abasement.

Fen said...

Hey J, this appears to be a very important topic to you. Perhaps you could write out the apology you want Ann to deliver and post it here?

And check out some S&M sites for a good whip. What do ya think, is 30 lashes enough? Or would you prefer more?

Doyle said...

I don't know, Fen. How many lashes did Garance deserve for knowing people who don't like Ann? Because she's already paid in full.

Palladian said...

I'm slightly ashamed to admit that it was deeply satisfying to see the Garance woman get thrashed, not because of anything she said about the Valenti contretemps, but simply because she was so incredibly annoying. The twenty-odd minutes of her vague, graduate-seminar-style prattle delivered in her distracted, patrician, Valley-girl up-talking drone that preceded the blow-up had nearly driven me bonkers. I think that Ann's verbal smackdown was partly a subconscious aesthetic reaction to being driven crazy by Garance's irritating conversational style. Something needed to happen to wake things up, and Ann's brain provided that something. The cathartic value of that verbal beating was immense.

Doyle said...

Yes, Palladian. Let your hate make you strong!

james said...

What you're missing is that I'm always talking about how other bloggers treat me, not something more general. I originally wrote this observation here, on January 31, 2005, after one year of blogging, and long before the blogger-Clinton lunch incident that some people like to say justifies the way I've been treated.

The reason right wingers treat you that way is because you constantly tell them how right they are and bend over backwards to agree with them that liberals suck. But when you think right wingers are wrong you, like Reynolds, couch it in nicities and without the poison, snark and innuendo you save for liberals.

I know all about the boob thing and you fairly got ripped for it. As a continuation of my original point have you ever written anything similar about the much wider, slower moving target GWB? It's obvious you still regret it by how pissed you got at that bumbling chick and probably a smart thing to test the waters with this post.

blackjimmy

Internet Ronin said...

Seriously, Doyle, the whole episode lasted at most 100 seconds. You are acting like this woman is going to be scarred for life, or need psychiatric counseling, because Ann got angry. Wow. You'd think the end of the world was nigh. People lose their tempers all the time. Most wish they hadn't. Most, like Ann, immediately apologize. It isn't a BIG deal. Ruta-Frank can handle it, I'm sure. I doubt she is hiding in a hole somewhere because of Ann's tongue-lashing. Or seeking counseling. Or plotting her revenge, for that matter. In fact, I doubt it is a big deal to her personally.

Now, for some reason, all of this doesn't satisfy you. I wonder why.

Fen said...

I don't know, Fen. How many lashes did Garance deserve for knowing people who don't like Ann? Because she's already paid in full.

Yes, someone raised their voice to the poor girl. I hope she recovers from the horror. Its almost as bad as facing Bolton with his hands on his hips [shiver!].

Ann Althouse said...

"Maybe in future Ann will wait a little longer and be sure she's actually being attacked before hitting back so hard."

Ha, ha, ha, ha... You wish! Someone yesterday advised me to stop blogging, because I'm just not cut out for it... emotionally, you know. Could you be any more transparent?

Naked Lunch said...

What would have been embarrassing is if GFR had said "Ann, I was just about to defend you on this one..." after Ann's tirade.

Oh.

Fen said...

james: The reason right wingers treat you that way is because you constantly tell them how right they are and bend over backwards to agree with them that liberals suck.

No James, we treat her warmly because we can have a civil argument with her about our differences. The Left hates that, because it makes the Right harder to demonize. You want us to validate your fantasy that we're brownshirt thugs, to justify your irrational hatred of us, and Althouse's blog keeps getting in the way.

Internet Ronin said...

Someone yesterday advised me to stop blogging, because I'm just not cut out for it... emotionally, you know.

I can believe that, but then I've long been of the opinion that the goal is to silence your voice or force you to submit to the will of others. Most of the comments here are definitely in that vein, IMO:

"Maybe Ann will think..."
"You're not going to get it, though, are you?"
"Have you apologized to her personally?"
"The reason "that old flame war" is being dragged out is to give you an opportunity to actually apologize for degrading another woman and encouraging others to do the same."
"I have to disagree with george and say that you do best when you comment on inanity and should probably dump the politics completely."


Just to spotlight a few of the gems to be found here on Althouse. Grind. Grind. Grind. As in, "Let's wear her down. Grind some more."

Internet Ronin said...

Yes, NL, that definitely would have been embarrassing. And funny, too.

(And not the first time something like that would have happened in a similar situation, either. I've seen it before, and am sure you have. It pretty effectively defuses the situation, too.)

AllenS said...

Anger is like passing gas. It's never nice, but sometimes unavoidable.

Mike said...

To this day I am amazed that supposed feminists support and associate with Bill Clinton. When I saw the Valenti/Clinton photo my immediate reaction was pretty similar to your comments. And I thought the left's attacks on you over them were way out of line.

Having said that, after watching the Bloggingheads exchange a couple of times, I have to say that I think this is a pretty good comment: "Maybe in future Ann will wait a little longer and be sure she's actually being attacked before hitting back so hard."

Just my take on it.

Internet Ronin said...

Editing Note: Apologies to Franke-Ruta for my repeated references to her as Ruta-Franke.

AllenS said...

Dang! I just read what I had posted above, and there needs to be an "in public" in there.

james said...

No James, we treat her warmly because we can have a civil argument with her about our differences.

Please enlighten this thread with a list of those differences. Please point out areas in which Althouse has ever in a way had a major break with her mostly right wing readership.

The Left hates that, because it makes the Right harder to demonize.

Not really.

You want us to validate your fantasy that we're brownshirt thugs, to justify your irrational hatred of us, and Althouse's blog keeps getting in the way.

Godwin for the win. But that does illustrate in a tortured way the perception that conservatives are just that, staus quoers who travel in packs. Just so you know, my hatred of you is not irrational.

blackjimmy

Ann Althouse said...

"Please point out areas in which Althouse has ever in a way had a major break with her mostly right wing readership."

You must have been off-line in January. Do a search for Althouse and Liberty Fund.

Internet Ronin said...

Gay rights, Jimmy. Lots of times.

Fen said...

James: But that does illustrate in a tortured way -

One assertion deserves another, James. If you can read our minds, we get to read yours too.

Mike said...

Gee, Jimmy: Gay rights, affirmative action, abortion, Al Gore for President, ... This isn't even hard.

SteveR said...

Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton twice, Rudy and yeah the whole thing in Chicago. If you want to call Ann a "right winger", first find out what that means.

dave™© said...

No need to apologize, dear - you just looked like the fucking lunatic you are.

And everyone agreed!

Palladian said...

"Godwin for the win. But that does illustrate in a tortured way the perception that conservatives are just that, staus quoers who travel in packs."

Ugh, that's the first time I've ever heard someone hideously pluralize that particular Latin phrase. Hint: status quo does not refer to people.

Anyway, I'm not a "right winger" (whatever the hell that means). I'm a liberal and a progressive in the real, true sense of those sadly perverted words. I don't care about Ann's politics. I like her because she's funny, she skewers the unthinkingly worshiped idols of her peers, and most of all because she's fabulous. You and Doyle and (at least what I could gauge of her personality in the bloggingheads episode) Garance are not fabulous. You're dour and drab. You're drabulous. And to us status quoers, that is not a good thing.

Der Hahn said...

I'm sure he knows a 'right wing blogger' when he sees one. If none of the posts are spittle-flecked diatribes recycling the meme-of-the-day about Chimpy McHitlerburton, the blog is written by one of those 'reich wingers'.

Michael said...

You didn't really hurt anyone but yourself. The fact that you were so excessively out of control and completely vitriolic means that you've lost a great deal of credibility, not only on this issue, but on basically everything you say.

Anyway, an apology that comes days after the incident and only after you came to realize how much harm it was doing you doesn't really count for much. It's too strategic.

Joan said...

On Franke-Ruta's style: vague, graduate-seminar-style prattle delivered in her distracted, patrician, Valley-girl up-talking drone...

That's it! I was trying to figure out what was so specifically annoying about GFR, and I realized it was the way her inflection went up at the end of every single sentence or phrase, exactly like the fifth graders I teach. Nails on the chalkboard, for me.

But just as cringe-inducing was Ann's coquettish flirting with her webcam at the beginning of the video. With the way she was tilting her chin and giggling, I practically expected her to bat her eyelashes.

I wondered why she would act that way, and speculated it was because Ann and GFR had never met or even spoken on the phone together before, and so Ann was being openly friendly to get things going. It was obvious that Ann was very comfortable in the BloggingHeads environment, whereas Garance seemed much less so.

Finally, Garance's diction was atrocious, and she has this awful habit of drawing out the first few words of sentence (while she's still formulating the thoughts that will complete it) only to rush through the rest of it while simultaneously lowering her voice in both pitch and volume. It made it very difficult to follow what she was saying at times. As a seasoned lecturer, Ann knows how to meter her speech and maintain a consistent pitch and volume, which makes her a lot easier to listen to. Just listening to Garance it's hard to believe that she's in her 30s -- is she really 35? I can't believe that a professional journalist (not a blogger!) could be so awkward in expressing herself and so lacking in presentation skills.

As to the substance here, Michael says: you were so excessively out of control and completely vitriolic

Which clearly demonstrates that he didn't watch it. The whole dust-up is over in about 2 minutes; the vlog is nearly an hour long. The dust-up wasn't at the end of the session, either. Did Ann lose her temper? Yes. Was she able to rein it in and continue with a productive discussion? Yes.

Just to make sure we all know he didn't watch the vid or read any of the previous comments, Michael continues with: Anyway, an apology that comes days after the incident and only after you came to realize how much harm it was doing you doesn't really count for much. It's too strategic.

Well, thanks for that, Michael, but Ann apologized immediately upon calming down, on screen and directly to Garance, and she also apologized late in the vid when they were signing off.

It really helps if you watch the video before posting your opinions of it.

Fen said...

The fact that you were so excessively out of control and completely vitriolic means that you've lost a great deal of credibility

I don't think you're allowed to grossly exagerate while using words like "credibility"

not only on this issue, but on basically everything you say.

Right. You want people to ignore everything she says because she got angry with the way someone brought up an old flame war.

Hey, can we use that standard against you too? I find your commentary excessively out of control and completely vitriolic. You've lost all credibility and should be ignored.

Mike said...

Joan said: "It really helps if you watch the video before posting your opinions of it."

Actually Joan, watching the video would have hindered Michael's ability to post, since he would have been aware of the discrepancy between his post and the facts.

Patrick said...

"The fact that you were so excessively out of control and completely vitriolic"

My big problem with the Left is they will have no words left to use when something big actually happens. The hyperbole they use to make themselves feel like they've made a point completely guts the English language of meaning. Or maybe such people are so sheltered and so historically ignorant they really think the hyperbole is an adequate description as compared to their sedate rooms in which all is peaceful and a nice man in a white suit brings a fresh flower every day.

I'd almost believe they were sincere if not for the hyperbole. Now, I'm much more interested in their reasons for insincerity and what they are trying to accomplish.

Weird group of people. Is it a cry for attention? A deficit of emotion? Do they want to feel something, anything, so they get worked up into a frenzy because someone else violated their constantly re-adjusted code of behavior?

I wonder if this is the same attitude the crusaders brought to the middle east. Supposed reasons gave them cause to unleash wild anger and excess.

Is there some system of Left Wing absolution for political sins if a person goes and attacks the blog infidels?

AlphaLiberal said...

Ann: You were the one provoking the flame wars on the bloggingheads thing by borrowing BIll O'Reilly's ad hominem tactic of responding to reasoned criticism with inaccurate and overblown characterizations. Unless you use of words like "nasty" and "vicious" is somehow not flaming? (??)

And you have the gall to say you were avoiding it? Hint: This is the type of thing that people don't like; doing one thing and saying another.

I hope this helps you understand a little betetr why you are criticized.

RogerA said...

Dave surfaces, relieves himself publicly, fails to wipe and wash his hands, and returns to work in the fever swamps of the left.

AlphaLiberal said...

"To this day I am amazed that supposed feminists support and associate with Bill Clinton."

What? Why? Bill responded to a solicitatous young woman ("wanna see my thong?") and engaged in some oral sex.

His policies, OTOH, were beneficial to women in many walks of life.

Feminists are not against sex. They are for policies that treat women as equals.

I know the righties have their own alternate universe where Bill Clinton was repressing women in between flying cocaine into Arkansas and murdering his staff.

But it's a whole different deal back here on Planet Earth

AlphaLiberal said...

And, reading some of these comments and Ann's bizarre statement leavews me shaking my head for her.

She flamed and ambushed Garance for an offhanded reference to an obscure episode. Then she plays high and mighty and above it all the next day, insisting she is not engaging in what she was engaging in just the day before.

I call "Bullshit!"

Fen said...

Feminists are not against sex. They are for policies that treat women as equals.

Feminists are against sexual relationships with subordinate employees, Alpha. You shouldn't deny promotions to women who refuse to blow you [Jones], you shouldn't grope women interviewing for a job [Wiley], you shouldn't have in sex with women who work under you [Lewinsky]. At least, thats what the feminist Left lectured us about before Clinton.

Mike said...

AlphaLiberal, are feminists for adultery? Not being one, myself, I don't know. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Naked Lunch said...

You shouldn't deny promotions to women who refuse to blow you [Jones], you shouldn't grope women interviewing for a job [Wiley]

Links needed for proof pls. Thanks.

Pogo said...

Re: "Links needed for proof pls."

Truly, a man who slept through the 1990s.

Naked Lunch said...

Pogo? Whacha got?

Pogo said...

No, you're right, Naked Lunch. Clinton never inhaled and he did not have sex with those women. Never happened.

SteveR said...

Pogo: "The sun came up in the east today"

Naked Lunch: "Links needed for proof pls."

Pogo: "Go outside"

Naked Lunch: "Pogo? Whacha got?

Fen said...

Hey NL, my fav quote from a prominent feminist icon:

Gloria Steinem: "He's accused of having made a gross, dumb and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took no for an answer."

Naked Lunch said...

Fen
And the Duke LAX players were accused of rape. Doesn't mean it's true, and it would be irresponsible to refer to them today as "rapists". Willey lied to the FBI according to Starr's own words, and knew he couldn't even call her as a witness for this reason. Linda Tripp also testified to a grand jury completely contradicting Willey's account. Can we put this one to rest yet or no?

salvage said...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Heheh...

heh..

You are such a dork.

Fen said...

Naked Lunch: "Links needed for proof pls."

Mostly Normal said...

I came to this blog for the first time today to try to understand this whole controversy from Althouse's side, as I've read about it recently on other blogs. But I'll be leaving now.

Althouse, your arguments regarding this whole situation just don't make sense. You assassinate someone's character based on the appearance of her breasts, then claim that your character is being assassinated when an interviewer uses the (benign) term "breast controversy" to answer your question "why are lefty bloggers mean to me?"

I'm breaking it down to the basics here: You insinuated a blogger was akin to Monica Lewinsky because she had big boobs and dared pose with a former president; some lefty bloggers got mad. You asked why lefty bloggers are mean to you; the interviewer said she thought the breast controversy had something to do with it. Seemed like a great opportunity for you to apologize for attacking a stranger based on her physical appearance.

I'm all for strong, well-reasoned opinions, even if I disagree with them but tortured logic, hypocrisy, and sexist attacks make for bad blog reading. On that note, farewell.

(Note: I also read Jessica's blog for the first time today, and frankly she's delt with this situation a lot better than you have. I plan to stay a reader of that one.)

Fen said...

I also came to this blog for the first time today to try to understand this whole controversy from Althouse's side, as I've read about it recently on other blogs. As I fail to grasp the most basic facts without distorting or misrepresenting them, I'll be leaving now. I also read Jessica's blog for the first time today, and frankly she's delt with this situation a lot better than you have. I plan to stay a reader of that one.

/ah hell, wrong account

Michael said...

It really helps if you watch the video before posting your opinions of it.

Actually, I did watch the entire hour plus segment. I really think "vitriolic" is the best way to describe the outburst. If there was an apology in the video, I missed it. Link or time code?

Luckyoldson said...

I just watched the video for the first time and have a suggestion for Ann: Get yourself a big ol' bottle of Valium and empty the entire thing down your throat. You won't die, but you will have plenty of time to m-e-l-l-o-w- out.

I felt terribly sorry for Garance Franke-Ruta, she was obviously caught completely off guard by you insane reaction to an offhand question that made perfect sense in the context of the interview.

You owe the woman an apology.

SteveR said...

Two aren't enough?

Michael said...

Another thing that really perplexes me about this whole thing is why Ann brought up TAPPED in the first place. For one thing, Garance shouldn't be held responsible for things her colleagues say -- I see no reason for guilt by association. And it's also the case that the negative comments about Ann were posted on personal blogs by people who also happen to blog at tapped. A quick Google search shows Ann is rarely mentioned at TAPPED.

Luckyoldson said...

I forgot to mention this in my previous posting, and feel it's really necessary to ask others what they think.

I post comments on 4 blog sites, two are liberal, 2 are conservative, and where Ann comes up with the opinion that liberal bloggers are nasty and cruel, while conservative bloggers are courteous and gentle is beyond my comprehension.

I've had conservative bloggers literally ask for my name and address so they could drop by to either beat the living hell out of me or, in a few cases I think they actually wanted to kill me.

Why?

Well, because I feel G.W. Bush has been a disaster for our country and do not agree with a mojority of his policy and administrative decision, they perceive me as a liberal, leftist, un-American, traitorous "troll," who doesn't deserve to live in the United States.

I think Ann is much more interested in pumping up her blog's advertising revenue than being honest.

Luckyoldson said...

Stever,
Based on the video, I think 25 or more would be appropriate.

Maybe.

Luckyoldson said...

I can't believe how some on this thread are still hammering away at Bill Clinton...especially considering who we currently have running the show.

Personally, I'd take lying about consensual sex over what we have today in a nanosecond.

Fen said...

micheal: Another thing that really perplexes me about this whole thing is why Ann brought up TAPPED in the first place.
She already addressed that here:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/03/bloggingheads.html#comments

Althouse: "I should have made if obvious that I'm referring to mainly to a Tapped contributor who writes about me not in his Tapped posts but on a separate blog. In addition to that, there is some crap on Tapped, but that isn't frequent. But if I search for my name on Tapped, I find some pretty ugly stuff."

Again - you are perplexed by things she has already explained, and you demand apologies she has already given [four by my count]. Please take the time to read Ann's comments and also [I guess for the 3rd time?] watch the vid more carefully.

Fen said...

luckyoldson: where Ann comes up with the opinion that liberal bloggers are nasty and cruel, while conservative bloggers are courteous and gentle is beyond my comprehension.

For starters, compare the comments here re Elizabeth Edwards having cancer to those on HuffPo & TalkLeft re Tony Snow having cancer.

I'd take lying about consensual sex over what we have today in a nanosecond

What about lying over sexual harassment and sexual discrimination?

Fen said...

luckyoldson: I've had conservative bloggers literally ask for my name and address so they could drop by to either beat the living hell out of me or, in a few cases I think they actually wanted to kill me.

I call bullshit. Post the links. Which conservative bloggers have threatened you? Name names.

Naked Lunch said...

I called b.s and didn't get any links Fen. Wat up. You repeated it again. Pls provide links to a legal proceeding that concluded there was sexual harassment and/or discrimination.

Fen said...

I called b.s and didn't get any links Fen. Wat up.

You moved the goalposts. I never said Clinton was convicted of sexual discrimination/harassment. I said that when Clinton was accused of such, the feminist Left made excuses for him.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen,
"What about lying over sexual harassment and sexual discrimination?"

Would you care to explain?

As for threats, etc. why would I possibly post anything like that for YOU? I reported the conduct to the internet security authorities and moved on.

As for the Snow and Edwards cancer stories, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've yet to read a nasty or derogatory comment from the left regarding Snow. And I haven't seen anything horrible from the right about Edwards...so what is your point?

*I did watch some idiot named Lars Larson (a right wing radio host...what a shocker)...last night on Larry King, lambasting the Edwards' making the decision they've made.

Naked Lunch said...

Fen
Check your 1:36 and 5:26 posts.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen says: "Feminists are against sexual relationships with subordinate employees, Alpha."

Are you talking about wolves, dogs or secretaries?

"You shouldn't deny promotions to women who refuse to blow you [Jones]"

What if the blow job isn't that good?

"you shouldn't grope women interviewing for a job [Wiley]"

Even if they get the job?

"you shouldn't have in sex with women who work under you [Lewinsky]."

What if they're on top?

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Fen,

So far no one has been able to provide a simple time code of where an apology takes place in the video. I've watched it and didn't see one. It's not like I was intentionally not looking for one either. I don't have a vested interest here -- before this blow up I didn't even know who Ann Althouse was.

I'm also aware of the posts on the personal blogs and that this is the reason Ann gives for bringing up Tapped. But that doesn't make it a good reason. It's still basically expecting Garance to stand up for things she didn't say, which is ridiculous.

Fen said...

Check your 1:36 and 5:26 posts

1:36 "Feminists are against sexual relationships with subordinate employees, Alpha. You shouldn't deny promotions to women who refuse to blow you [Jones], you shouldn't grope women interviewing for a job [Wiley], you shouldn't have in sex with women who work under you [Lewinsky]. At least, thats what the feminist Left lectured us about before Clinton"

5:26 "What about lying over sexual harassment and sexual discrimination?"

Sorry, NL, nothing there about Clinton being convicted of sexual discrimination/harassment.

And luckyoldson? Weak trolling. Please don't bore us.

Fen said...

Micheal: Fen, so far no one has been able to provide a simple time code of where an apology takes place in the video. I've watched it and didn't see one. It's not like I was intentionally not looking for one either.

Rgr that. I'm signing off now to head home from work, so I can't find the time stamps for you right now, but if no one else does, and you're still interested in this tomorrow AM, I'll dig them out for you.

Ann Althouse said...

Time stamp: 1:13.

Anyway, I am shaking my head over the pathetic demonstration of my point in Alpha Liberal's comment here: "'To this day I am amazed that supposed feminists support and associate with Bill Clinton." What? Why? Bill responded to a solicitatous young woman ("wanna see my thong?") and engaged in some oral sex. His policies, OTOH, were beneficial to women in many walks of life. Feminists are not against sex. They are for policies that treat women as equals. I know the righties have their own alternate universe where Bill Clinton was repressing women in between flying cocaine into Arkansas and murdering his staff. But it's a whole different deal back here on Planet Earth."

You really don't realize that you demonstrated my point that Clinton set feminism back 20 years? You don't know the first thing about sexual harassment law as it was understood and promoted by feminists pre-Clinton? How old are you? Presumaby, under 30. What a sad, sad state of affairs! This is why I broke with the Democrats. They sold out feminism for party politics. To think that the first woman president would arise out of that! It makes me sick that you people don't know what you are and don't know what feminism once was.

Dr Zen said...

The Valenti breast thing was not about Valenti's breasts, which was why you posted under the title "Let's take a closer look at those breasts".

Not only did Clinton not sexually harass anyone (nice Repug talking point, but consensual sex, even adulterous sex, is not "harassment") but suggesting he damaged feminism is ridiculous coming from someone who voted for Bush and carries water for his disgusting, womanhating administration. Jeezus, when Alito tanks Roe vs Wade, I'll be very much enjoying your explanation why you supported him.

Ann, you broke with the Dems because you are a narcissist and you saw a good route to exposure in becoming a wingnut blogger. You're no feminist, as your disgraceful behaviour in the Valenti Breast Controversy demonstrated.

Ann Althouse said...

"The Valenti breast thing was not about Valenti's breasts, which was why you posted under the title "Let's take a closer look at those breasts""

That's right! The post title referred to the images of breasts that she used to decorate her blog.

SteveR said...

God almighty Dr Zen, are you really that freakin'
dense or just being a jerk because it makes you feel better?

Wade_Garrett said...

"This is why I broke with the Democrats. They sold out feminism for party politics."

You've changed your story on this, too. You've previously said that security was the reason you abandoned the Democrats. How secure are the Republicans keeping us?

Joan said...

How secure are the Republicans keeping us?

Well, we had anthrax attacks shortly after 9/11. But we haven't had any Madrid- or London-style train bombings. Nor have we had any Beslan-like horrific assaults doing here. Could the Democrats have done better? Since we can't reset the conditions and re-run the experiment, why bother to even ask the question? It's irrelevant.

What is relevant is current policy and how it will affect the future. The Democrats' recent vote in both houses of Congress quite clearly demonstrated that they do not have a clue as to how to 1) observe their proper role within the government; 2) enforce party unity without having to resort to pork; or 3) prosecute a war effort that shows faith in our objectives and ability to deliver them.

Petraeus was unanimously approved, and every member who voted for him knew that he would be implementing the Surge strategy. If they had problems with the surge, why did they so glibly confirm Petraeus? In spite of all their talk of mucking out the fetid swamp that the Republicans left behind up on the Hill, the Democrats have instead decided that mud baths might not be so bad after all -- good for the complexion, some say.

You never know. Maybe this is what Americans were voting for last November. I don't think so, because a significant majority is opposed to us lamely accepting defeat in Iraq.

Don't you think it's pathetic that the Democrats are trying to impose timetables just as we're implementing a new strategy and starting to see positive results? I do, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

Getting back to Ann's "conversion": yes, she has repeatedly cited post-9/11 security concerns to support her vote for GWB. But does her frustration with the Democrats have to be single-sourced? Can't she cite security issues while at the same time being annoyed and frustrated by what she perceives as the Left's abandonment of early feminist goals and ideals?

Ann Althouse said...

Wade: "'This is why I broke with the Democrats. They sold out feminism for party politics.' You've changed your story on this, too. You've previously said that security was the reason you abandoned the Democrats. How secure are the Republicans keeping us?"

I've never joined the Republicans, and my decision to vote for Bush in 2004 was based on the lack of commitment by the Democrats to national security, but I lost my feeling of affiliation to the Democrats over feminism years before that. As I've said many times, I dislike both parties, and I am vigilant about people who put party affiliation over principle, especially people who put allegiance to the Democrats over feminism.

JimM47 said...

Does anyone know if Ann could see Garance during the bloggingheads recording?

Apparently Garance can't see Ann, and thus doesn't read Ann's visibly strong reaction to the words "breast controversy."

Ann Althouse said...

Bloggingheads is always a phone conversation. We never see the other person. I commented on this in my diavlog with Jonah Goldberg that there are many opportunities for the person who isn't talking to communicate with expressions and gestures (or even props and signs). I thought we should exploit the comic potential of this.

Fen said...

Dr Zen: Not only did Clinton not sexually harass anyone (nice Repug talking point, but consensual sex, even adulterous sex, is not "harassment")

No, not with Gennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinksy [although the last still violates the tenents of the women's rights movement re sexual predation in the workplace]. Both affairs were consensual.

But as Governor, Clinton invited a state employee into his hotel room, unzipped his pants and asked her to "kiss it". When she tried to leave, he blocked the door and reminded her that he was good friends with her boss...

As President, Clinton sexually assualted a campaign volunteer who entered his office seeking a paying job. He groped her breasts and moved her hand on top of his crotch.

So I don't know what else you think qualifies as sexual harassment. If you tried any of that at work, you'd be canned.

Simon said...

Dr Zen said...
"[C]onsensual sex, even adulterous sex, is not 'harassment'"

It can be (and in this case was) in the context of organizational hierarchy.


"[W]hen Alito tanks Roe vs Wade, I'll be very much enjoying your explanation why you supported him."

It's interesting that you lack the faith that abortion rights command sufficient support to survive in the democratic process, and must thus be subtrated from that sphere. When Roe - or more specifically, Casey - is overturned, the question will become part of the democratic process, where presumably, the vast pro choice majority we hear so much of will crush benighted pro-life types like me at the ballot box. See Rosen et al.

Luckyoldson said...

Ann,
Anybody who voted for George W. Bush in 2004, because of his handling of American "security" is being disingenuous at best, flat out lying at worst.

By 2004 we knew full well that the invasion of Iraq was based on skewed intelligence, that Bush had included misinformation in his SOTU speech, even after being warned not to by the FBI, CIA and others, that the aftermath of the invasion was being handled poorly an leading to a fiasco (that continues to rage today), and that the search for Osama was abandoned. (Where is he today?)

You're not an Independent...you're a Republican. Why not have the guts to admit it?

Ann Althouse said...

"You're not an Independent...you're a Republican. Why not have the guts to admit it?"

I voted for Russ Feingold in '04 (and all the other times he's run).

If you think I'm a Republican, why not see if Annette Ziegler agrees?

Luckyoldson said...

Ann,
The fact that you vote for specific Democrats certainly doesn't mean a thing. Republicans, Democrats and Independents don't always vote the "party line" from top to bottom. I live in California and voted for Arnie and I'm a lifelong Democrat. Why? Because, in my mind, he was the best candidate.

The overwhelming evidence that you're a Republican lies in the fact that, after knowing what you and the rest of America knew about Bush's performance between 2000 and 2004, you walked in to a voting booth and gave him the nod.

As for your excuse, that you didn't trust Kerry on defense; well, that's just laughable at best...unless of course, you're using the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly rule of thumb when making your decisions.

Fen said...

that Bush had included misinformation in his SOTU speech

Try again. Wilson lied. Senate Intell Cmte, CIA and British Intel still confirm that Saddam sought yellowcake from Niger.

Fen said...

As for your excuse, that you didn't trust Kerry on defense

Kerry's defense policy consisted of throwing Israel to the wolves and begging the UN to maintain sanctions that were already failing because of Euro-weasel corruption. Shooting yourself in the foot would have been a better choice than supporting Kerry's secret plan.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen,
Yeah, it's really a good thing we didn't elect Kerry. Can you imagine how horrible things would be today in Israel, Palistine, Iraq and Iran??

Thank God we have little Georgie in the White House. (And be sure to forward your note of support to the families of the 3,200 dead and 24,000 wounded soldiers...I'm sure they'll find it reassuring.)

*As for Wilson lying, give it a break...thinking people know who the liars were in this entire affair.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen:
Everything you post is nothing more than allegations. These aren't FACTS.

Why do you post such inflammatory lies and distortions?

Mike said...

"Yeah, it's really a good thing we didn't elect Kerry. Can you imagine how horrible things would be today in Israel, Palistine, Iraq and Iran??"

As a matter of fact, I can.

Ernie Fazio said...

Well, at least there are some faithful here. Its running ten to one against on Bloggingheads. They want our girl banned for life like a cute Pete Rose. Still, the idea that the 20-30 something left is mean to our l'Althouse, so mean that she loses it on Bloggingheads when reminded of past dust ups attacking her ad hominem screed against a 20-something,is a little hard to take. That screed by the way would never pass muster for a 3rd wave, 2nd wave or big wave feminist to utter. But then our l'Althouse has long rejected official feminism.

Let us see: objections to a breasty website somehow justify belittling and nasty personal attacks that get the response from the juvenalia that they deserve.

I am getting a little cynical about the whole l'affaire l'Althouse. Here we have a tenured law professor, quite adept at bouts of faculty room repartee with her esteemed and oh too liberal colleagues, melt down in Tom Cruiselike fashion (yes, I saw the entire vblo. Yes it was a very long 100 seconds) when confronted by a past indiscretion.

Ah, then we have the blog minions spend reams of digital ink supporting her? No they spend their time excortiating... Clinton. They must all say to themselves paraphrasing Rick to Ilsa, as their movement self destructs daily on so many fronts, ..."We will always have Clinton (Paris)."

What I think is that l'Althouse does not like acting her age, and when she is forced to by a 30 something bloggingheads debatee who she is "way older...than," she doesn't like it.

Face it, l'Althouse, it was a tacky move that may gain you street cred on the right, but it won't cure the ache to once again be that brilliant engenue whose brains and style wowed 'em at ol' UofW Law School.

You can't find your youth by mean spirited forays into the hip blogosphere. The real question is how many of your faithful minions could hold their own in your classes? In the kingdom of the blind,....But do you really want to be queen of the blind, or just a run of the mill over the hill boomer? I think I know the answer.

peggy said...

You know Ann, I'm about your age, a lawyer too. And I am not sure when that moment was that you think the dems sold out feminism. I wasn't happy about the monica thing -- I was grossly unhappy about it, to tell you the truth. My problem was more Monica's age than her employment status, but I was not happy. And I was irritated that some folks seemed to ignore the troubling aspects of the liason in their defense of Clinton. But sell out feminism? That's not what happened in my opinion, by any stretch. Was it something else that was the sell out?

illusory tenant said...

The post title referred to the images of breasts that she used to decorate her blog.

What a load of disingenuous bollocks. Your original entry from 9/13/06, with the bitchy comment, "Let's just array these bloggers... randomly" is the main referent here.

Remember, you initiated this whole opéra bouffe.

Your subsequent claim, on 9/15/06, of "wanting to elevate the discussion" is a farce similarly situated to your mud flaps defense above, since it was devoted purely to mocking Ms. Valenti.

And, most importantly, you completely ignored her question, posed rhetorically, about why you chose Ms. Valenti from among the array to upbraid on the naked premise of your own tired, Clenis-based posturing.

Because there is another woman, situated second from the left, identically posed. And in fact you said, "It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing."

Posturing indeed.

If that really was the case, then surely you'd have launched your petty invective at the other woman as well, who, as far as I can tell, not only possesses a pair of female breasts, but a top cut lower than Ms. Valenti's.

By your own stated criteria, surely she's every bit as culpable as Ms. Valenti.

So sorry, but your "blue dress and beret" remarks gave you away long, long ago, and the ex post facto rationalizations aren't going to cut it.