Those prissy, puritanical lefty bloggers.
There's been a lot of talk about me lately in the left-o-sphere. And, sorry, but I'm not going to link to it. You know how to find things. Anyway, for the most part, I don't answer back. As my mother used to say: You'll only encourage them. But I just want to comment on a new meme that's emerged in the anti-Althousiana.
(Oh, I'll do one other thing -- with a link. Check out the way the sublimely wonky Harry Farrell and Dan Drezner devote the first 11 minutes of their new Bloggingheads episode to talking about me... and the furious comments section that spirals out of it that's nearly all about me and not all that global politics stuff about the EU and so forth that they go on to chew over for the next 50 minutes. When anti-Althousiana goes viral, even the wonkiest academics lose their immunity. My favorite detail: Both Drezner and Farrell go on record as not particularly liking my blog. For context: I was pretty mean to Drezner here. Drezner attributes to me the notion that I don't accept disagreement on my blog -- an idea he seems to read into something I do say, which is that some people get what I'm trying to do here and some don't. See the quote from Jack Balkin in the masthead, above.)
Anyway, back to my point: the new meme about me in the left-o-sphere. Based on my "American Idol" vlog, where I hold up a glass of wine -- look, it's Jordin Sparks, reflected right here! -- and eventually take two sips of it, they are all: Althouse is a drunk, Althouse's drunken videoblogging, etc. This is the way these people see having a glass of wine? How very prissy and puritanical!
(Oh, I'll do one other thing -- with a link. Check out the way the sublimely wonky Harry Farrell and Dan Drezner devote the first 11 minutes of their new Bloggingheads episode to talking about me... and the furious comments section that spirals out of it that's nearly all about me and not all that global politics stuff about the EU and so forth that they go on to chew over for the next 50 minutes. When anti-Althousiana goes viral, even the wonkiest academics lose their immunity. My favorite detail: Both Drezner and Farrell go on record as not particularly liking my blog. For context: I was pretty mean to Drezner here. Drezner attributes to me the notion that I don't accept disagreement on my blog -- an idea he seems to read into something I do say, which is that some people get what I'm trying to do here and some don't. See the quote from Jack Balkin in the masthead, above.)
Anyway, back to my point: the new meme about me in the left-o-sphere. Based on my "American Idol" vlog, where I hold up a glass of wine -- look, it's Jordin Sparks, reflected right here! -- and eventually take two sips of it, they are all: Althouse is a drunk, Althouse's drunken videoblogging, etc. This is the way these people see having a glass of wine? How very prissy and puritanical!
Labels: American Idol, anti-Althousiana, blogging
Stumble It! Facebook DiggIt! Del.icio.us
posted by Ann Althouse at 6:43 AM
195 Comments:
I don’t think they’re sincerely prissy. That’s just their cover.
I think they all do illegal drugs. That’s why they get so worked up about data mining intended to catch terrorists.
"...[t]he furious comments section that spirals out of it that's nearly all about me and not all that global politics stuff about the EU and so forth that they go on to chew over for the next 50 minutes."
Unfortunately, I may have inadvertently encouraged that degeneration by challenging a point Henry made in his - how ironic - characterization of comments made here in the bhtv thread the other day. In my defense, I think it'd have gone that way anyway - which generates more gossip, reality tv or ABC news? People tend to react more strongly to human interest stories, and people are interested. Personally I think it's more like a drive-by assassination attempt than a car wreck, but Dan and Henry have the right idea.
Simon, they made it the first segment, and they talked about how the bhtv comments were skewed against me. I read that as a vigorous demand that anyone who supports me ought to write over there. It's their own damned fault if the response to what they themselves highlighted swamped the subjects that are their natural, wonky subject matter. I appreciate your response to their demand. They clearly imposed a negative interpretation on the failure to comment. When anti-Althousians swarmed the comments section on the diavlog I did, the read it as a gauge of how much people object to me. Any subtlety to silence was lost on them, so I am glad someone is presenting things from my side over there.
I don't see a lot of the Anti-Ann stuff becasue I don't read too many political blogs. If I want to get my heart racing and adrenaline flowing I just have to pick up my local paper. However,
For what it's worth, I think the problem is you are an intelligent, articulate woman of moderate to conservative political views who is not afraid to disagree with the received wisdom and express your opinion about that disagreement. The operative word there is "woman." Your gender makes you a tratior all that is right and good in the eyes of the typical left-winger. And you know traitors are always treated more harshly than the rest of us deluded tools of Haliburton Conspiracy.
Ann - I'm sticking with my previous characterization, that it's hard to hear anything over the cacophonous roar of a thousand axes being ground at once.
It seems more important than ever to speak loudly and clearly when poisonous whispers are given volume by multitude. I'm just disappointed - sick, in fact - that it seems to resemble less a reenactment of "300" than the charge of the light brigade. We happy few.
Tim -
I hadn't thought of it in those terms, although there may be something in that. I think you're right to identify a sense of enraged denial of something they feel entitled to, though.
It's noble that its probably someone who's snorting a line off a chest that's been thrust in Clinton's direction who is the one who is concerned about the moral fabric of our country and saving it from Boozer Ann! If they were only drunks, at least a few of them would become more pleasant. Their stuff's been stepped on with Drano one iteration too many.
Dear Ann -- I'll drink to that.
You know what - I have a little thing on my wall with a quote that has appeared on this blog before, one that seems especially apt this week:
"Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity."
Is Ann really that conservative now? Of course, I see things from the right of her, but she sure looks moderate to me. I know it was more than two years ago, but when she posted that long post about the pros and cons of Bush and Kerry, and why she ended up behind Bush, I heard a moderate speaking. She was giving Kerry a lot of points for things that I would have been downgrading him for.
Rather, I see a couple of things. First, a former liberal who has snuck off the plantation, and needs to be coerced back (but I suspect the coercing is backfiring). Secondly, her blog (usually) makes people of both sides relatively comfortable. It is a nice meeting place, which is sorely lacking. But that gives her a bigger presence on the left than some more conservative blogresses. And finally, I wonder if Ann sometimes just eggs them on. Maybe for the hit count, but most likely just because it makes life more interesting.
Just some thoughts.
Timothy K. Morris does a far better job of explaining the reason for smears like this than my repeated attempts over the past couple of years to say the same thing. They also do it because they expect to get a reaction from you.
Look, there's no shortage of legitimate reasons to dislike you. You can't blame them for taking shots at the occasional "target of opportunity" like you toasting the video camera with your wine glass.
Thread Aside follows: Doyle: predictions for the coming baseball season please! Its the only area abouot which I stipulate you may know something :)
Mets rotation struggles badly. Phillies win NL East.
Jeremy Bonderman wins AL Cy Young, after Santana’s elbow finally gives out.
Daisuke Matsuzaka lives up to the hype, winning 18 and striking out 200.
Chris B. Young wins NL Rookie of the Year.
Red Sox win World Series again.
Doyle: it is noted, archived and will be brought up again about Oct 15. :) (You are pretty good at that stuff, BTW)
Thanks, Roger. Maybe I'll leave Ann alone and start up Straight Flushing again...
Naaaah!
Don't know about Farrell but I used to read Drezner pretty regularly until he totally jumped the shark in the run up to the 2004 election.
He did a faux-debate over who to vote for that was so transparently biased for Kerry it made your teeth hurt. He basically compared everything Kerry promised to do, without any estimation of how Kerry's plan could be implemented, against actual events during GWB's first term, without regard for Bush's role in the events.
He's Andrew Sullivan for people who are wonk-posurers.
If you're making enemies like these, good for you!
Hey, I think I have the new political divide down:
Liberals get snarky over drugs (Limbaugh / Oxycontin, G W Busn / Cocaine, Althouse / Wine),
Conservatives obsess over sex (Clinton / Lewinski, Clinton / Jones, Clinton / Flowers)!
"I wonder if Ann sometimes just eggs them on"
I'm beyond egg and into vortex. Didn't I get an amazing vortex going this week? It's my personal best.
they talked about how the bhtv comments were skewed against me.
The bhtv comments are always skewed against you. Doesn't matter what you do. The blogging heads where you got angry was just red meat for the people who already hated you.
As a card carrying oenophile, my suspicion is the most liberals probably thing "fruit forward" refers to the annual gay pride parade, rather than a description of Aussie Shiraz.
Don't kid yourself, Fen. She minted a whole bunch of new Althouse haters this week. Just look how many of the BHtv complaints were from first or second-time commenters, rarely moved to speak until they felt compelled to ask Bob never to have her on again. It was quite moving, actually.
No big surprise there; they're puritanical about lots of things. (Especially if you accept Mencken's definition of Puritanism.)
On the other hand, they're at least being open about their anger instead of, erm, bottling it up.
Just look how many of the BHtv complaints were from first or second-time commenters, rarely moved to speak until they felt compelled to ask Bob never to have her on again. It was quite moving, actually
That was Glenn Greenwald. :P
I am a big supporter of Althouse and her blog and the way she runs it. However, I don't recall having ever watcher watched any of her videos or clicked on any links to internal blog related squabbling kind of stuff. As such I would never make it to a board in order to provide defensive posts. Who here actually watches that kind of stuff or spends time thinking about it?
sonicfrog, you may wish to update your list. The left is getting upset with sex, too. Any gay man who leans conservative becomes a target.
Ughh. What would you guys do about Greenwald if it weren't for that spurious accusation? I mean, if the proof were as solid as Patterico would have everyone believe, he probably wouldn't have been hired by Salon.
Sockpuppetry is a much more serious allegation than it sounds. Just ask Sprezzatura.
Red diaper doper babies are such hypocrites.
Red diaper doper babies are such hypocrites.
So, seriously, folks, do you think Bob Wright is the kind of person who would be less likely to have me back after this, more likely to have me back after this, or exactly the same amount of likely to have me back after this?
Here's a good reference point (Bob talking to me about the haters, saying, among other things "I think the more they hate you the better" and "It's good for ratings").
Here's another (Bob getting really angry at Mickey Kaus -- not a unique example).
I do find it interesting how the Left is always appealing to conformity. "X" is cool & hip, "Y" is not. And don't you want to run with the popular crowd? Be accepted by all us cool cats? Most of the Left's positions appear to be more about what they believe is Popular than what they believe is Right.
Similar issues with the Digg comments re Little Green Footballs. They've perpetuated this myth that LGF is a racist site, and as a mob they bury any LGF article that makes its way to the top of Digg, regardless of content.
And Dem Underground has an action group that attempts to "astroturf" search engines, so that if you try to find info on say, "Joe Wilson Lies", your first 20 hits are all lefty talkng points.
So the online Left is busily creating and reinforcing their mythology.
Althouse is now one of their myths.
I can only repeat what I said before, which is that I am amazed that the whole thing went as far as it did. Especially considering all the other problems the world faces.
What would you guys do about Greenwald if it weren't for that spurious accusation? I mean, if the proof were as solid as Patterico would have everyone believe -
IP addys don't lie.
Any gay man who leans conservative becomes a target.
Yeah, I know. The only reason I don't get attacked is because, AFAICT, no one knows I exist! :-)
Any gay man who leans conservative becomes a target.
Yeah, I know. The only reason I don't get attacked is because, AFAICT, no one knows I exist! :-)
Yes, Doyle, it is probably true that a lot of new people don't like Althouse now. And some don't want her back on bloggingheads, too. A lot of people probably don't want a lot of other people back on blogginheads for one reason or another. One thing for certain, though: more people watched that episode than any other. And most of them will watch again when Ann does it - like you, who come here every day, they will find it irresistable. In fact, I'll wager a few of them are now checking in here daily, too. Funny how that works.
Blogger comments are freaking out again. Says my post isn't posting, yet, it is.
Ann -
You know he was kidding about wanting conflict for publicity purposes, right? It's a joke. He doesn't want lunatics screaming incoherently about "assassination" and "context" every time someone dares to bring up something that reflects badly on them (which they instigated in the first place).
And at least Mickey was the person Bob was mad at, instead of a readily available proxy for the people he was really mad at.
Hopefully that's the end of your run.
I spend a lot of time (probably too much) time over on the left side of the blogosphere. You know what, on the major sites where serious politics are discussed, and even the parody sites, Ann is rarely mentioned. (I'll have to admit, I was tickled to death when Jesus' General became concerned about Islamic Death Rays shooting out of Jose Padilla's eyes thanks to Ann.)
Yet, regular readers of this site know that there is a vast left blogosphere conspiracy (most likely organized by Kos, because he, after all is the puppet master) to destroy Ann because she is not a liberal. Now apparently, the leftwing blogosphere is abuzz with talk of her being a drunk because she took a couple sips of wine on a vlog about American Idol! She won't dignify these vicious attacks with a link, but we all know how to find them.
Problem is, when I try to find them, I can't. Come on Ann, give us a hint. It isn't Kos, Digby, Kevin Drum, or Eschaton. Your constant victimization seems to be either extreme narcissism (people are picking on me, therefore they must be paying attention to me) or paranoia.
People will come hoping to witness a train wreck. If they don't get it, many will leave. Others will stick around and, in the process of listening, think "Hmmm. Good point, that," or something to that effect, during the give-and-take and their cartoon image will fade away.
Good point Freder. Althouse-hatred is actually kind of a niche thing in left Blogistan. Thers, Sadly, No!, Scott Lemieux, T-Bogg... Those are the only ones who can be counted on to mock Ann when she does something especially embarassing. Atrios is no Ann fan, but he mostly just links to LGM.
The GFR meltdown didn't even get a diary on Kos, that I saw; though the video was too good for Crooks and Liars to pass up.
Fred: I'll bite: Who is Jesus' General?
Ann, my 9th grade English teacher told me something that I will never forget:
To avoid criticism - do nothing - say nothing - be nothing.
You need to butch-up and stop playing the victim.
Vortexed Eggs -- a new Chez Althouse recipe!
The GFR meltdown
More mythology.
I think the problem with your live-blogging of american idol was that it is amazingly hard to imagine you would think that your real time reactions to the idiotic show were a subject that should be shared. It was the intimacy and the loneliness and the irrelevance which caused many of us to think you might have been drunk.
Secondly, her blog (usually) makes people of both sides relatively comfortable. It is a nice meeting place, which is sorely lacking.
Are you serious man? Ann has insulted me personally and frequently calls me a troll. I'm a big boy and I can take it, but this site is hardly a comfortable for the lefty commenters. Granted I can be a little abrasive and sometimes throw out a personal insult or two. But I have never called anyone a cocksucker, a traitor, anti-American, an enemy-lover, implied that they should be tried and executed for treason. Yet all these insults have been hurled at me.
I can't recall Ann ever calling a rightwing commenter a troll (Ann's definition of "troll" is apparently limited to those commenters who directly challenge the veracity of the statements made in the main post). Nor have I ever seen her call any of the more extreme right wing commenters (e.g., Cedarford) on their frequent off-topic vicious, hate-filled, bigoted ravings that often contained veiled threats.
A few days ago Ann banned Reality Check, apparently for using several aliases and other unnamed offenses. Cedarford by far is the most offensive poster on this site, yet I have never seen her as much as warn him about his language or his abuse of other posters.
Peggy, you must have watched it if you know that those were real-time reactions and were bothered by "the intimacy and the loneliness and the irrelevance." So that worked, didn't it? True, you didn't like it - but that's no big deal. Others did. Just like some enjoy watching 24 and others don't - the major difference being that those who don't usually don't watch it confirm they don't.
Or were you just repeating something you read someone else say, Peggy?
(I'm not interested in American Idol so I didn't watch Ann's performance.)
He doesn't want lunatics screaming incoherently -
Then he should start screening his own comment board...
Look, its ridiculous to insist that a commenter shouldn't be on because she got angry with someone. If that were society's standard, Mathews and Olberman wouldn't have an audience. There are other reasons they bhtv herd doesn't want Ann back, and its dishonest of them to pretend otherwise. They're making mountains out of molehills because they want to shut her up.
peggy: it is amazingly hard to imagine you would think that your real time reactions to the idiotic show were a subject that should be shared
Then you should work on your imagination. I enjoy the frequent disccusions she generates re Project Runway, Top Design, Survivor, etc. Its fun to share other povs, and its nice to occasionally bicker back and forth about something other than politics.
Fred: I'll bite: Who is Jesus' General?
Best right wing site on the web. Gen J.C. Christian, Patriot (An 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender), monitors the web for all things French and Homosexual to make sure they don't undermine the Glorious Christian Cultural Revolution.
Ronin, you made the assumption that Peggy was "bothered" by the video, or the performance. Peggy was commenting on Ann's *behavior* in the video. Her degree of acceptance of the video was not noted in her comment - as you have incorrectly commented on.
Whoa--that's amazing: right up there with the mullet of the week site!
some scary dudes out there!
Thank you, Michael. I stand corrected.
[shrug] "It is amazingly hard to imagine [anyone] would think that [Peggy's] real time reactions to [Ann's vlog] were a subject that should be shared"
One reason I read Althouse is because I don't need a blogger to tell me what to think. Isn't this the nub of the complaint? That Althouse won't declare sides.
Good grief, Freder, you constantly accuse Ann of bad faith, then complain of her bad opinion. Get a clue, man.
This post has been removed by the author.
Freder: Guess you missed this disclaimer:
This is political satire. Everything posted here should be understood in that context.
The General is a Democrat. NTTIAWT ;-)
(BTW, I don't read Cedarford for the reasons you outlined.)
As collectivist Statists, leftists in general are validly dubbed "puritanskis". Because they seek power over all aspects of individual as well as communal behaviour, you will hear objections to raising a glass in Toast: Not because you're sipping wine, though Global Warming hangs in the balance, but because you presume to live a bit without permission.
If your Toast was vetted by Mao or The Great Stalin, all would be well; we must kowtow before our thuggish masters. But should you purchase Vino Veritas upon the open market (horrors), then actually emit personal opinion in form of a public address, Big Al and MzBill among others will rise in rage to ensure that no surprise declamations ever pollute their noosphere again.
That's what nihilistic narcissists all do: Force silence, and to be quite sure about it-- you're better off dead. Craven and corrupt as Puritanskies always are, they weave police-State webs, lurking like spiders to envenom and oviposit slavish eggs in you.
As collectivist Statists, leftists in general are validly dubbed "puritanskis". Because they seek power over all aspects of individual as well as communal behaviour, you will hear objections to raising a glass in Toast: Not because you're sipping wine, though Global Warming hangs in the balance, but because you presume to live a bit without permission.
If your Toast was vetted by Mao or The Great Stalin, all would be well; we must kowtow before our thuggish masters. But should you purchase Vino Veritas upon the open market (horrors), then actually emit personal opinion in form of a public address, Big Al and MzBill among others will rise in rage to ensure that no surprise declamations ever pollute their noosphere again.
That's what nihilistic narcissists all do: Force silence, and to be quite sure about it-- you're better off dead. Craven and corrupt as Puritanskies always are, they weave police-State webs, lurking like spiders to envenom and oviposit slavish eggs in you.
freder, You mean I'm not a lefty? (pout)
I had to laugh -- this is totally off topic -- about the letters to the editor re: the Supreme Court race in the local paper. One complained that a candidate did work for the ACLU!. The horror. And another said the same candidate associates with lawyers!!!! Somehow, these right-wing wackos never ponder Ms. Ziegler's cringeworthy Gut-Checks on whether she should recuse.
MM:
You mean I'm not a lefty?
Everything's relative, you know ;-)
Ms. Ziegler's cringeworthy Gut-Checks
Small gut or large gut?
This is political satire. Everything posted here should be understood in that context.
[....]
I actually found it a bit endearing, to tell you the truth. It was kind of like performance art. But it was also troubling, since it seemed to by an invitation to intimacy over a vast, anonymous medium.
Actually, though, the point of my post was to respond to Ann's comment that those of us on the left who had a strong response were prissy and puritanical. That's a baseless attack, one with no foundation in reality. Just name calling.
That's a baseless attack, one with no foundation in reality. Just name calling.
Kinda like the attacks on Ann re her criticism of "feminists" like Valenti?
fen, isn't this entire discussion about the liberal response to ann's american idol vlogging? Wouldn't that make liberal's comments about her response pertinent? Our would you prefer to engage in baseless speculation?
Freder: Guess you missed this disclaimer:
What? JC Christian really isn't a conservative? He's just mocking all those people? Next you'll tell me Jonathon Swift really didn't want to eat Irish babies.
Ann, I think the issue with your American Idol vlogging is not the fact that you took a couple sips of wine on camera but that you had obviously taken a whole lot more than a couple sips off camera.
You might want to play back that vlog and if you can't admit that you were at more than a little drunk when you recorded that (and consequently set yourself up for ridicule since we all like making fun of drunks), then perhaps you should examine your drinking habits.
peggy: fen, isn't this entire discussion about the liberal response to ann's american idol vlogging? Wouldn't that make liberal's comments about her response pertinent? Our would you prefer to engage in baseless speculation?
From the link in the original post:
Jacob Levy: She was the one who found Feministing blogger Jessica guilty of having breasts while standing in the same room as Bill Clinton.
You were complaining about Ann's comment that those of us on the left who had a strong response were prissy and puritanical. That's a baseless attack, one with no foundation in reality. Just name calling.
I found your complaint to be ironic.
Pyrthroes
You got to hit the road with that sermon man. I think all of us can identify a little with the Stalinist and Maoist spiders everywhere spinning and weaving police-state like webs entrapping us all in communal leftist cocoons.
On the other hand it might have just been some familiar foes having fun using Ann as source material.
Sorry, but why do I care? Isn't there enough catty, self-referential nonsense on the left side of the blogosphere? I wouldn't even bother if I wasn't avoiding doing my taxes. Get over yourselves and add some intellectual value! That goes for the other guys too.
Freder Frederson said...
"the issue with your American Idol vlogging is not the fact that you took a couple sips of wine on camera but that you had obviously taken a whole lot more than a couple sips off camera."
What's your evidence for that assertion? And don't say res ipsa loquitur, because that's bullshit and you know it. In what way was her demeanor in this vlog a significant departure from preceding vlogs and podcasts?
It was kind of like performance art.
Sheesh, and the right wing criticizes modern art! Getting drunk, watching American Idol and recording yourself commenting on it is not even "kind of like" art unless your definition of "art" includes paintings of dogs playing poker.
You weren't drunk?
That says a bit...
As the New Yorker used to say: stories I never finished reading:
There's been a lot of talk about me lately
Get over yourselves and add some intellectual value!
Must be a new guy.
In what way was her demeanor in this vlog a significant departure from preceding vlogs and podcasts?
Her eyes were unfocused and kind of bleary. Her movements are clumsy. She is constantly flipping and playing with her hair. She is talking too loudly and laughing inappropriately and seems fascinated with ridiculous trivialities (even more so than usual). If she were a sixteen year old girl, I could pass off the behavior to youth. But seriously, fifty-something women don't act like that unless they are drunk.
Really Simon, anyone can see she is half in the bag. Even the comments on this site note that.
So, seriously, folks, do you think Bob Wright is the kind of person who would be less likely to have me back after this, more likely to have me back after this, or exactly the same amount of likely to have me back after this?
I think he's made that pretty clear.
Fred: Dogs playing poker is pedestrian; I prefer collecting paintings of elvis on black velvet myself.
What you did was for public broadcast.
You drank in public.
It's your Macahca moment.
Oh poor you?
Think about what you are doing when you intentionally, do public things, otherwise, accept the reprocussions of your own actions.
What a whiner you are.
PS; Hazeldon is a great place.
You drank in public. It's your Macahca moment.
How silly. I think a previous post was spot on: their stuff's been stepped on with Drano one iteration too many.
First, 'Dogs Playing Poker' is obviously as much art as most of the crap that gets govt funding. The fact that it's 'populist' art just puts the wind up elitists is all. (Didn't the small original recently sell for a million or 2?)
Second, if Feder can assert drunkeness on Ann's part can we not assert drunkeness when he posts here, based of how much of what he posts reads like that irritating drunk next to you in a crowded bar sounds when he Just_Won't_Shut_Up?
Hey. I support you. Just because we are supporting two parties - does not mean I don't. I do read yoyur blog everyday.
You drank in public.
Yes. God Forbid. Please restrict your drinking to private places in the future! Think of the Children. And you did it TWICE in ONE WEEK! Watching AI, and vlogging the podcast.
Y'know -- if you were a native, you'd be knocking back Brandy Old Fashioneds (Sweet).
Yes, Ann, you created quite the vortex this week. Nice of you to admit that was your intent. Perhaps you can now let us all know that you set poor Garance up for your meltdown performance. When you so innocently asked her why the lefty blogs hate you, you had to know she would at least mention the Jessica Valenti incident. Your performance art shines through again. Always the Diva, Ann, always the Diva
Ed Driscoll has been saying something similar about the sinistral side of the blogosphere and politosphere for a while now.
When you so innocently asked her why the lefty blogs hate you, you had to know she would at least mention the Jessica Valenti incident.
I found Garance's "they hate you because you hate them for hating you" comment to be especially stupid. Alot of her commentary was like that.
And if you despise the Vortex so much, why do you keep jumping back in? Your side has spent a ridiculous amount of time & energy frothing over this.
This is getting so tiresome. Today the big complaint is that Ann drinks wine...? Not at all drunk, a little drunk, a lot drunk - who cares!?!? What the hell is this? Nannies Against Drunk Blogging?
No, what it is really is finding something anything to grab onto to criticize someone you don't like. I swear it's like a bunch of fifth grade girls. Did you see what Ann did today? Oh. My. God. She's SO not sitting with us at lunch.
Is there any other high-traffic blog that gets as much advice, solicited or unsolicited, on what its writer should be doing, positions she should take or not take, things she should or should not write about? A lot of people seem to insist on defining not just the Althouse they see, but the Althouse they want to see. It almost seems like you arouse a protective instinct, even among your adversaries. Why do the people who seem to dislike you keep coming back and commenting almost every day? It's like they're your crabby uncles and aunts trying to tell you who you should date and where you should apply to college. And now, they're harassing you about your drinking!
That's it: This is a big, dysfunctional family. Even "dave" -- he's the bratty, anti-social little brother. And those of us who like you...we probably spend a little too much time worrying about you. You can certainly take care of yourself, as you've shown repeatedly.
Roger, I'll bite. What is the "mullet of the week" site?
First, 'Dogs Playing Poker' is obviously as much art as most of the crap that gets govt funding. The fact that it's 'populist' art just puts the wind up elitists is all. (Didn't the small original recently sell for a million or 2?)
And here we have the right wing definition of art. "It must be art, look how much someone was willing to pay for it."
Freder - I'm not convinced.
John - great memory! That clip looks pretty fortuitous now.
Did you see what Ann did today? Oh. My. God. She's SO not sitting with us at lunch.
Thank you, Jennifer, for putting all of this in perspective.
Sorry, but I drunk blog, not Ann.
Farrell is kind of a parody of a liberal professor who believes that he knows something important, when all he really knows is academic garbage.
johnstodder....your comment was right on!
Permit here it is: http://www.mulletsgalore.com/motw/
It is a tongue in cheek tribute to the hairstyle known as the mullet, AKA Kentucky mudflap; short on sides and top, long on the back.
enjoy
I reported last weeek that Khalid Sheik Mohammed confessed to writing many of Formidable Law Blogger Ann Althouse's posts. He also admitted to being the guy behind "New Coke" and Olestra's anal leakage problem. Rotten bastard.
Is there any other high-traffic blog that gets as much advice, solicited or unsolicited, on what its writer should be doing, positions she should take or not take, things she should or should not write about?
Is there any other high-traffic blog where the writer is the focus of the blog and spends so much time discussing her status in the blogosphere, who likes her, who doesn't, who is saying what about her?
But thats all about a Moderate Dem being stalked by the Nutroots as a Heretic. If the Left stopped the Inquisition, Ann wouldn't have to defend herself so much.
Cigarette?
This episode raises in my mind the ideal that in reality, the World Wrestling Foundation is behind the blogosphere. Think about it: good guys and bad guys; generate lots of hits; sell lots of ad space. When things get dull, create a contretemp--the WWF equivalent of the other tag team guy coming in with the chair and hitting the opponent. Big fight breaks out; traffic goes up.
Is that too cynical an interpretation? Thoughts?