June 29, 2011

Isthmus columnist Emily Mills slimes me over the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokegate" story...

... without taking the trouble to link to or quote anything I said. Or should I say without daring to link to or quote anything I said? She cites the "the fires of victim blaming amongst Prosser supporters" and then says:
One of the more vocal among them is blogger and UW Law School professor Ann Althouse, who has gone to great and terrible lengths to excuse the alleged behavior, attack the credibility of only the anonymous sources with whom she disagrees, suggest that no arrests (yet) mean no wrongdoing, impugn the honor of Justice Bradley, and cast doubt on the very justice system of this state.
What? Emily makes no effort to back up that characterization of me. My posts about the Wisconsin Supreme Court are all collected here. Any fair reader can see that I'm endeavoring to understand the stories that have appeared in the press, critiquing the press, and asking a lot of sensible questions. It's not even fair to call me a "Prosser supporter," let alone assert that I've "gone to great and terrible lengths" to "excuse... attack... [and] impugn" anybody.

Emily Mills' dishonest assertions about me seem to reflect her desperation, her need to believe what she wants to believe, her reflex to plug her ears and go la la la la la. I mean, look at what I actually said.

When Bill Lueders first dropped the allegation that Prosser choked Bradley, I merely noted it and said "Hmmm." My second post linked to the presentation of the story on the lefty blog Think Progress, which was about the ways to oust Prosser from the court. I corrected the blogger (Ian Millhiser) for calling Prosser an "accused criminal" instead of a "person accused of a crime" — which is a point anyone who cares about the rights of the accused ought to find important — and I observed that we lacked the full context. I speculated about who Lueders's sources were and who would have the motivation to go to the press. And, most devastating to Mills's embarrassing statement about me, I said:
But sure. If Justice Prosser committed a criminal attack on another Justice, he shouldn't be on the court, even if he only lashed out after weeks or years of merciless bullying. 
In fact, if you search through my posts, you'll see that I've consistently said Prosser should resign if he choked Justice Bradley. I said:
I agree with Millhiser that if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go. I doubt that's true, however, because there was no arrest. That's why we're getting the story in this unsourced, piecemeal form.
I'm struggling to figure out what went on. Yes, I do use the evidence of no arrest to suggest that Prosser didn't suddenly snap and launch into a strangling, but that doesn't mean I'm saying "no arrests (yet) mean no wrongdoing." It means — as anyone who reads that post with a calm, clear mind can see — that I'm guessing the situation was complex — and later reports confirm my guess.

That post is updated with a reference to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report citing allegations that Bradley initiated the physical aggression — charging at Prosser with fists raised. Emily Mills deserves to have her own language turned back on her: She has gone to great and terrible lengths to excuse Bradley's alleged behavior and to impugn the honor of Justice Prosser and blah blah blah. It's so easy to be a hot-headed partisan. And so risky! Because you make it so easy for someone to show what you are.

My next post on the subject goes into more detail examining the new material in the Journal Sentinel article. That post, before updates, concludes:
I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.
I boldfaced another sentence for you, Emily. My first update includes the material that, I think, has touched off panic in the local ideologues:
Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign.
I was calling for even-handedness and consistency. And that, I think, was what was truly "terrible" to people like Emily Mills. After the burst of enthusiasm that came with Bill Lueders's hit piece on Prosser, there came the horrible realization that the dreaded conservative governor Scott Walker might end up with the power to name a replacement for one of the liberal justices. I pointed that out — in the context of critiquing the decision to give Lueders the ability to break the story the way he did. I was trying to analyze the reasoning and motivation of the Lueders's unnamed sources.

This led to my next piece, analyzing the political reasoning behind Lueders's attack. There, I noted how the Lueders piece inspired lefty bloggers to go all out attacking Prosser in ways that will now — after the Journal Sentinel piece — be used to leverage arguments against Bradley. I repeated my statement "if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go." And I called for principled consistency (addressing the Think Progress blogger Millhiser):
All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?
This is what's so scary and what — I think — is making these partisan local columnists tear into me. I'm not a pro-Prosser blogger. I'm a law professor blogger, probing with questions about neutral principles, the actual facts, and political interests. Lueders lured lefties into making statements that are now quite inconvenient, and they don't know how to get out of the corner they've written themselves into. Don't lash out at me. That's childish.

I'm asking hard questions that demand thoughtful, careful answers. It's been my job for a quarter of a century as a law professor to frame questions like that. And I'm an expert at seeing when people don't want to answer the questions. Answer the questions, I plead with my students before they take my exams. You can only get credit for answering the questions.

In my next post, I deal with a comment that Lueders left on that previous post, trying to defend himself. I continue to critique him and demand precision about the various assertions and what constitutes spin. The post after that has a similar theme, trying to figure out who Lueders's sources were. Here's another short post, wondering about who had the motivation to go to Lueders.

And that's just about all Emily Mills could have read before lashing out at me. Now, it's possible that she didn't read anything I wrote, because after the paragraph of hers I quoted above, she says:
I won't go into why Althouse's arguments are wrong -- someone has already done a far, far better job of it than I ever could -- but her writings on the matter provide a fairly good overview of what so many Prosser supporters are now arguing.
She links to some blogger's long screed about me. Emily, that's quite a confession! That's a far, far better job than you could ever do? How dare you write about me the way you did without going through my writings yourself? Did you check that blogger's work? Are you adopting the poor reading and reasoning as your own? You call me on fairness and you write about me the way you did? Aren't you even afraid for yourself, that you will look like a stupid hack? Aren't you even afraid for your liberal cause, that you have lost the very credibility you will need to defend Justice Bradley (and the Chief Justice) as the facts unfold? You need to show that you are interested in the truth, in principle, and that you will deal with the evidence and the serious questions. Why would you be so careless? It smells like desperation and panic.

I have waited nearly a day to respond to Emily Mills's embarrassing attack on me. Yesterday, Meade went over there to participate in the comments. He wrote:
Shame on you, Emily.  You assert and smear without so much as linking to her posts. You fail to cite the passages in which you claim she goes to "great and terrible lengths," "excuses," "attacks" credibility of sources (you happen to want to believe), "suggests," and "impugn[s]." You do this without linking or citing the specific words and sentences you want your readers to believe are objectionable. All because, what, because you say so?

Weak.

And then you dish off the dirty work of trying to substantiate your charges to a verbose blogger whose only argument in smearing Ann Althouse relies on the notion that Justice Bradley was in fact choked - a fact that is still in dispute.

I've seen you do better, Emily.
Although Mills responded within 2 hours to the previous commenter, she has not responded to Meade, and more than 13 hours have passed. I was hoping Meade's relatively gentle push-back would have been sufficient. I don't really like slamming a young writer who could do much better. Even when I have been attacked, I don't like it. Because I feel like a teacher. I'm not a political ideologue. I don't even care that much about politics. I care about truth and the ability of human beings to reason and to interact with each other.

And I generally choose not to draw attention to attacks on me. But the statement that Emily Mills made about me simply cannot be allowed to sit there festering on the website of a newspaper — Isthmus — that is widely read in my town.

It's too much like the attack from Bill Wineke that I felt I had to respond to yesterday. Both writers are attacking me as a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. I think they would like to destroy my reputation in this town, where they so casually assume the benefits of inclusion in what is a political majority here. I think they carelessly and lazily believe that local readers will eat up the sloppy attacks they're serving, because local readers agree with their political ends.

As they rush at me from across town shaking their balled-up fists in my face, I feel I must extend my fingers in self-defense, and type out an exposé of their shoddy work for a larger audience.

CORRECTION: The writer of the column "Emily's Post" isn't "Emily Post." It's Emily Mills. I've corrected all the mistaken references to "Emily Post."

331 comments:

1 – 200 of 331   Newer›   Newest»
Fred4Pres said...

"great and terrible lengths"

I immediately thought of Where The Wild Things Are.

Let the wild rumpus start!

Firehand said...

Kind of amazing, isn't it? They either won't actually read your words, or don't care what you actually said; because neither of those things fits what they want to push. And they'd rather be dishonest and partisan and corrupt than deal with all those nasty facts.

And they damn sure don't want people with a wide readership asking questions they don't want asked and pointing out things they don't want people knowing. Even when their actions trash their own reputation

The Drill SGT said...

Get a better burglar alarm for the house, Ann. Does your house have a lawn spinkler system? I would consider putting in another zone that covers your roof. Seriously...

I see torches and pitchforks in your Madison future.

X said...

the no links thing is particularly poor etiquette.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





Althouse, you’re not really this naïve are you? You’re just ACTING all “surprised”, right? If not, well, I’m sorry but you have made a horrendous mistake…”we’re” not interested in the Truth. “We’re” interested in VICTORY. I use “we’re” in the sense that Buffalo Springfield sing, “Signs saying ‘Hooray for our side.’” And we’re never quite sure who “our side” is…a generic “we” or “Us/our”.

In this case the “we” is the Left and their goal is Victory…the repeal of the Collective bargaining and the defeat of Walker and the Republicans. “we’re” not interested in anything but that. And the elections defeated us, the flea-bagging failed, the failure to publish failed, the law suit failed, and now we have left only, driving out Prosser and Recall Elections.

Prosser MUST go, and if you aren’t on-board, “If you are not with us, you are against us.”; then you must be defeated too! Or at least cowed. “we’re” not interested in the TRUTH, we’re interested in the “Narrative.” You are not going with the Narrative and hence, you too, must be given the Two Minute Hate.

AllenS said...

You only need to defend yourself against Emily's charges with one finger.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





I might add, you’re “Madison Privileges” are about to be revoked, AGAIN.

Fred4Pres said...

Here's the article Emily links to to show Ann whats what:

The confusion occurred amidst other confusion over what occurred in the office of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and a review of how this story was reported, and then mis-defended by local law professor and conservative gadfly Ann Althouse, is an instructive look into conservative "thought" these days.

Fred4Pres said...

Ann Althouse, a conservative gadfly who voted for Obama.

AFG said...

Why does Ann always think people should take anything Meade says seriously. He is a commenter on a blog. Are people supposed to automatically give him credibility because he is intelligent and writes a lot of comments on Ann's blog? He doesn't seem to have the credentials to be given any special attention.

Carol_Herman said...

Well, Ann, since your giving these creeps space on your blog by posting about them, they're gonna be showing up like flies.

The usual course to fame and fortune has been cut off for them.

What can they claim and post about? Algore returns their phone calls?

On the other hand, it is worth observing that they're bat shit crazy now, with hate! Their purpose is to cut you down to their size. And, as I've said, you're taking them and holding them up. So we can all see their lunacy, now.

This was not how it was supposed to end. Obama promised them success.

Heck, Abrahamson, STUNNED that Kloppenhoppen on her own couldn't "win." ... And, then they tried another way. At great cost to Wisconsin taxpayers. And, again, they couldn't win.

But now? Perhaps flush with Soror's cash they've attempted to use their strongest card! As their dying trees fall ... they swinging this way and that.

And, the only time they get SKIMMED is when they show up, here.

You could call this a wasted effort on their part.

Or, something less tame.

But winning?

These jerks are not winning!

Count those who have already lost their dignity:

Anthony Weiner

Shirley the loon Abrahamson

Bradley, a justice because the label on her door says so.

But there's no brains there.

They've been exposed.

And, they only continue to hurt themselves.

Prosser, a majority of people worldwide now know, didn't choke anybody. Abrhamson had reneged on a bargain she struck with her court.

Choking?

Wasn't Abrahamson hiding out? If there in fact had been a deal on a "date certain" on which the opinion would be published ... didn't she lie to her colleagues?

There are currently two investigations by two reluctant investigators.

For all we know it will just increase donut consumption.

On the other hand? Bradley's made false charges. Her charges aren't sticking up there. Will this anger the judicial committee? Do bears shit in the woods?

gerry said...

The left does not need facts, professor. They feed each other the desired story, a plot that fulfills political ends. The left's motto: "Facts be damned, let's make up the ones we need!"

Debate? Shit. I am surprised you haven't been called a racist in an attempt to shut you down.

Here, let me jump the shark for Post. Professor, you must be a Nazi to have such feelings about Bradley and Prosser. Right-thinking non-Nazis know that Prosser is evil and choked Bradley!

Fred4Pres said...

"conservative darling Ann Althouse"

Sounds better than gadfly, that is for sure.

Curious George said...

AA, let me help you out.

"Did you check that blogger's work?" NO

Are you adopting the poor reading and reasoning as your own? YEP

You call me on fairness and you write about me the way you did? YEP

Aren't you even afraid for yourself, that you will look like a stupid hack? NOPE

Aren't you even afraid for your liberal cause, that you have lost the very credibility you will need to defend Justice Bradley (and the Chief Justice) as the facts unfold?

HA HA REALLY? YOU DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND LIBERALS PROFESSOR... NOPE!

You need to show that you are interested in the truth, in principle, and that you will deal with the evidence and the serious questions.

UH, SEE ABOVE !

Why would you be so careless?

BECAUSE IT WORKS!

Michael Haz said...

"I think they would like to destroy my reputation in this town, where they so casually assume the benefits of inclusion in what is a political majority here."

Exactly right. The progressives in Madison are all about diversity and inclusiveness - providing that everyone else thinks, writes and acts exactly as they think, write and act. Those who don't are to be destroyed.

Excellent graduate-level seminars in The Role Of An Editor this week, Althouse. Too bad there are no actual editors left in any of the Madison media, masthead titles notwithstanding.

Shouting Thomas said...

What we have here is an alleged conflict between a person belonging to a certified victim class (the woman), and a person who belongs to the certified oppressor class (the man).

You are blaming the victim, Althouse. And you are going to great and terrible lengths to do it.

Off to the re-education camp with you!

traditionalguy said...

The It is a Judeo-Christian tradition that the a judge is NOT to favor the home team over the righteous ones in a case. That Blind Justice issue is what Abrahamson, Bradley, and now Post have never respected. You have exposed them as a tribe of feminists defending the powers of great Chief Abrahamson. Power is never surrendered without a fight, so keep your head down.

AprilApple said...

Leftwing journalists and honesty do not mix.

Scott M said...

As they rush at me from across town shaking their balled-up fists in my face, I feel I must extend my fingers in self-defense, and type out an exposé of their shoddy work for a larger audience.

If you were dealing with fair and rational people, AA, this last sentence wouldn't look like an admission of guilt that you're a Prosser booster.

Lincolntf said...

What a hack's hack. I hope that all the drooling idiots over at the Isthmus realize that she makes them look even worse than they actually are. No quotes from Althouse, but a link to a simple-minded screed by an obvious dolt? Very nice, Emily. You are dishonest, spiteful and just plain stupid, but you were kind enough to wrap it all up in one article, so that's good.
Very good girl, very good, you'll get your doggie treats today. Just go ask Abrahamson and Bradley, maybe they'll even take you for a walk!

The Drill SGT said...

AllenS said...
You only need to defend yourself against Emily's charges with one finger.


Right middle or right index?

X said...
the no links thing is particularly poor etiquette.


Always attack up, not down. More traffic that way...

johnvert said...

Not to worry, most Wisconsinites do not read the isthmus. It is the insulation used by the union/democrats in Madison.

LYNNDH said...

Prof, they are out to get you fired, or forced to not blog any more.

Scott M said...

@AFG

I started to read your comment before I realized you have no credentials posted.

Fred4Pres said...

AFG, WTF? Credentials? Meade's posts should be given weight or not based on the posts. Becareful about relying on credentials.

t-man said...

"Aren't you even afraid for your liberal cause, that you have lost the very credibility you will need to defend Justice Bradley (and the Chief Justice) as the facts unfold?"

Does a pawn care about credibility? The pawn hopes that someday it will become a queen.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





ScottM, AFG needs NO “Credentials” he’s criticizing Meade…the fact that he’s criticizing Meade is credential enough. Do I have to revoke YOUR Madison Privileges, too?

Next you’ll be on about Zombies or something…..

Shouting Thomas said...

The clenched fist has been the emblem of the left throughout this soap opera.

Isn't this a symbol of threats and violence?

The left is using a symbol of threats and violence and simultaneously denying that that symbol has any meaning.

Is it, then, any wonder that Judge Bradley is alleged to have "balled up her fists" and charged Judge Prosser?

Let me assume a few things. Judge Prosser was supposed to know that the clenched fist really wasn't a threat or a warning a violence? It was just a symbol.

When you use a symbol of threat and violence as your icon, why shouldn't people believe that you intend to employ violence?

Scott M said...

I'm really thinking that I should stop making comments on this blog all together. AFG has made me realize that, sans credentials, nobody will give a damn about a word I write, snark or serious. I had thought that a discussion thread on a blog was a way for everyone, credentialed or not, to debate freely. Apparently I was wrong. Without credentials, is there any point?

I would ponder that last point, but I'm not sure I have the credentials to form abstract thoughts.

PaulV said...

I love it when an evil liberal plan blows up in their face

bagoh20 said...

Make no mistake, they probably read all your words, but as we see every day, it's your refusal to swallow all the meme and add some fuel to it that makes you a target. You are either 100% with them or you are the enemy - pure partisan emotion. Your attempt to enlighten them will go nowhere. You can do nothing virtuous now, you hack.

Jess said...

For some reason, Emily's column reminds me of a skit on Laugh-In, in which they pitted Sammy Davis Jr. against Wilt Chamberlain in a boxing ring.

dbp said...

"It also fueled the fires of victim blaming amongst Prosser supporters."

Emily simply assumes there is a victim and that it is Bradley. That Prosser might actually be the victim here is so far outside her ken that even when pointed out, still does not enter her mind.

Carol_Herman said...

Who wouldn't make the mistake of calling Emily Mills, Emily Post. Emily Post ws famous for telling ladies they couldn't go outside, and be considered dressed, if they didn't wear gloves and hats.

As to Emily's charge that "all the justices in Wisconsin have been tainted," she's actually onto something.

Given that other people have invested mightily in their careers to reach as high as being a judge. And, why would they want to be in the same class of people as Abrahamson? And, Bradley? They must be rending their garments this morning, they feel so bad at the loss that's occurred to their profession.

But ya know what?

Proves they're no longer in denial.

Should get interesting when a number of these now outraged judges get real angry.

Turns out, this may be the problem solver. You didn't think the fat chief policeman Tubbs was gonna do it, did ya?

Nor will the sheriff. Not from Dane County.

Perhaps, there will be, now, enough judges of good influence ... that they'll join forces ... and spell out to the incompetent investigators who've taken brooms to shove this under the rug ...

That there's a price to pay, after all?

You know how Hugo Black made the Klan pay, don't cha? You know when you set revenge in motion ... it's gonna be cold and sweet ... when the wronged person gets even.

In the law that means the People will get better decisions.

Abrahamson, however, can fight and spit as much as she wants to ... Her dignity is gone. She can't be trusted. And, the governor is a republican.

Tell Emily Mills even the russians learned how to read PRAVDA. And, tell Emily Mills she really looks ugly when she gets angry. That should do it.

chr1 said...

Thanks for the work Althouse.

Perhaps as a civil libertarian/thoughtful feminist, as someone perhaps actually conservative (conserve what's here) as a law professor, you already realize that many people sliming you simply don't have anything else...they've made careers and staked their private and public identities on gender theory, Lefty causes, absolute egalitarianism, the union gravy train etc.

They keep getting voted down there in WI, and they are obviously not happy about it.

Perhaps you can't law teach them all, but it's interesting to watch you try.

bagoh20 said...

Few of us wingnuts would consider Althouse a conservative, but she is a darling.

We would call her a liberal, but one who thinks. That might actually make her a conservative for all practical purposes.

Kevin said...

Consider all of this as preparing the battlespace for the 2012 election.

You don't think that you will be allowed to live in Madison if you don't endorse Obama again, do you?

Anybody who disses The One needs to be shouted down and worse!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

AFG has made me realize that, sans credentials, nobody will give a damn about a word I write, snark or serious. I had thought that a discussion thread on a blog was a way for everyone, credentialed or not, to debate freely. Apparently I was wrong. Without credentials, is there any point?



IF you could show a subscription to the Utne Reader or the Village Voice you’d be more believable.

pauldar said...

Forrest Gump had it right in so many ways "Stupid is as stupid does." and "That's all I have to say about that.'

Fred4Pres said...

Few of us wingnuts would consider Althouse a conservative, but she is a darling.

Yes she is.

And I do not like Meade getting picked on either. Even if he lacks credentials!

garage mahal said...

"I think they would like to destroy my reputation in this town, where they so casually assume the benefits of inclusion in what is a political majority here."

You love the attention. Please.

You never answered the question why you feel Leuder's story is a "hit piece", but not the "alternate version" of Bradley attacking Prosser, that was conveniently leaked to the media.

galdosiana said...

Lueders was on the CBS news last night (Channel 3) talking about his breaking of the story, and when asked about his sources and if they actually said that this is what happened, Lueders said no, that the sources only stated that this allegedly happened.

Stick to it, Ann, because yours is the only reporting that IS actually true journalism.

Hagar said...

Calm down, Professor.

What part of "if you are not with us, you are against us" do you not understand?

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Professor Althouse's defense works with us, because we are (mostly) interested in facts, and history, and reasoned conclusions.

But Emily Mills's goal is radically different. She don't need no steenkin' facts and reasoning - she's preserving a Narrative which is designed to penetrate and fix public consciousness by any means necessary. Hers are Alinsky tactics.

While we're following and examining posts which explore the weakly-sourced events, and posts like this one making reasoned defenses of logic to date, Emily Mill's eruption has gone three times around the world and scored big gains with the hothead leftist crowd it's specifically designed for. They now have 'support' for dismissing out of hand the inquiries and reasoning and conclusions of Ms. Althouse. Emily says so - that's good enough for the 'by any means necessary' politics being practiced in Wisconsin.

The politics of brutal assertions, in a nutshell.

AJ Lynch said...

AFG said:
"Why does Ann always think people should take anything Meade says seriously. He is a commenter on a blog. Are people supposed to automatically give him credibility because he is intelligent and writes a lot of comments on Ann's blog? He doesn't seem to have the credentials to be given any special attention."

And the qualifications to write for the Isthmus are?

Seeing Red said...

They're gunning for you.

U teach Constitutional Law.


That means what they say the Constitution & the Law mean.

Welcome to our world.

bagoh20 said...

It must be very satisfying to get slimed like this. It shows you have juice. You're like Palin without the rifle. Being hated can me very lucrative if it's the right people, but be aware that your uterus is now suspect and under surveillance.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Wait, you actually expected some lefty journalist to display integrity?

Hahahahahaha!

Scott M said...

IF you could show a subscription to the Utne Reader or the Village Voice you’d be more believable.

I have both, but I haven't found a way to get the bar code tattoo they put on the back of my neck to show up on these blog comments.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Here's the telling point kids. Bradley admits she was pulled away from Prosser. That right there tells you who the aggressor is.

Checkmate.

Lincolntf said...

Cripes, it took about ten minutes to register at Isthmus. They really want ALL your information before you can post. Anyway, I'll probably be banned in 5 minutes, so I better make it count.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

You never answered the question why you feel Leuder's story is a "hit piece", but not the "alternate version" of Bradley attacking Prosser, that was conveniently leaked to the media.



OMG, Garage…the Prosser side was “leaked”?! It was released, Abrahamson LEAKED a story….Geeeez, you’ll say anything, believe anything as long as you think it will help the Progressive Cause.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





OK, Scottm, if you are telling the truth, the March 2011 Issue of the Utne Reader does it say that “Cuba’s Health Care System is a Model For the Rest of the World” or “Cuba’s Health Care System is a Vision For the Rest of the World”? Also, did Republicans get called “reactionaries” or “Reactionary Thugs, of Running Dog Monopoly Capitalists.”?

bagoh20 said...

"he is intelligent and writes a lot of comments on Ann's blog? He doesn't seem to have the credentials to be given any special attention."

What a tool. I think intelligence is highly overrated all around, but jeezus, when did it become valueless for discussing issues?

Answer: When the intelligent person comes to an unapproved conclusion.

I bet those justices are pretty well credentialed. You know, the ones acting like 8 year olds.

Fred4Pres said...

garage mahal said: "You love the attention. Please."

Projecting much?

Seven Machos said...

I myself am reminded of the Rathergate controversy. Anybody with any objectivity could predict accurately that such blatantly false and crappy hit-piece journalism was going nowhere. In that case, it was because of the absurd font.

In this case, it is because the witnesses to the event are judges who, in all likelihood, saw two complete assholes (Prosser and the other judge) acting like the complete assholes they are. And their consciences aren't going to allow them to construct an elaborate lie about it.

This whole thing is the most amazing tempest in a teapot in the history of teapots. Nothing's going to come of it.

O2BNAZ said...

The left is dominated by sub-intellectual bigots who lack the ability to think their way out of the problems they create for themselves. So they must resort to lies innuendo and violence...it's all they have left...

Carol_Herman said...

Gezz, Garage, Loo-der's piece was a hit piece because he didn't even get the seating in the room right.

Loo-der said there had been a meeting called in Bradley's office: LIE!

Abrhamason was hiding out in Bradley's office. It was 5:30 PM. And, 4 justices, including Prosser were wondering where their chief was. Since they were told she had not, as yet, left the building.

So, the four justices went door to door. Looking. Loo-der didn't even know the facts! He just reported the "claim" ... now proven untrue ... that out of nowhere Prosser hissed "a bitch." Causing Bradley to just spring up. And, her head extended far enough across the room ... that it must have been bug eyed. (She was also hitting the air with raised arms and swinging fist.)

Prosser has witnesses who said there never was a choke hold.

And, worse for the crew who are investigating this ... Bradley couldn't achieve consensus among her colleagues. "Miss Congeniality" flew out the window.

Is Miss Congeniality dead, yet?

Was it suicide or homocide?

And, didn't Bradley do it?

Why in heaven's name did Abrahamson go and call in the press?

Will she be impeached for having lied to her colleagues?

How did her colleagues ever get to think there was a publication date decided on for their JOINT opinion?

For evidence, we know that Abrahamson didn't like what had happened in terms of outcome. Her side was in the minority.

Is this typical behaviors for chief justices? We've got 50 states. We've also got a Federal judicial system. Plus, law is a credential you can earn by going to school.

Can Abrhamason point to a role model she's been following?

If Abrahamson can prove her behaviors are typical, I'd love to hear other judges coming out and saying so! I'll even take Kagan and Sotomayor. I ain't fussy.

I think the "choke hold" story is a misdirection.

PETER V. BELLA said...

Prosser is being maligned because he won his seat. Progressives will use any and all propaganda to unseat him or make him look less than human. It is their way.

They will also demean, debase, and dehumanize any and all who offer critical analysis of the situation.

Once the allegation is made everyone- and they do mean everyone- is supposed to get on the bus. It is how they travel.

Be proud you are being "slimed". And remember, when s@#t is rolling down hill, there is always one brave soul who will toss it back.

Real Debate said...

Ann, you did not except as fact the Soros funded Prosser is insane left wing take on this, ergo you were wrong.

You expect fairness from a left-win blogger?

You know better than that.

Fred4Pres said...

Seven Machos, I think you nailed it.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

OMG, Garage…the Prosser side was “leaked”?! It was released, Abrahamson LEAKED a story….Geeeez, you’ll say anything, believe anything as long as you think it will help the Progressive Cause.

LOL. If it was released, and not leaked, who released it to the media?

Irene said...

Journalism has become a form of litigation. It's not about finding the truth; it's about advocating theories and presenting facts in a way that ensures that one "side" wins.

Lucius said...

"[G]reat and terrible lengths"-- has Emily been reading "A Great and Terrible Beauty" by Libba Bray?

How old is Emily Mills?

Seeing Red said...

Credentials?


Just because one has "credentials," doesn't mean one is "educated."


See MMGW & socialism.


But they can't hide the decline.


wv:dismsim

kind of like - dismissism.

Peter Hoh said...

I care about truth and the ability of human beings to reason and to interact with each other.

Looks like a manifesto.

And a good one, at that.

Keep up the good work.

Bob Ellison said...

Professor, the professorial stance does not work here. You do come across as supporting Prosser generally. You've been quite fair in the Chokegate matter, but your distaste for the other side is plain for all to see.

I'm trying to understand where you're going with this big argument. Do you want to push the political world toward more even-handedness? That'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. If I were you, I'd ignore silly stuff like Mills's article.

Peter Hoh said...

Fred, Althouse is a liberal gadfly.

Sullivan is a conservative gadfly.

Seven Machos said...

Irene -- Isn't that far superior than relying on a few gatekeepers who decide what will be presented? Also, what you describe has always been the case. It's just that there are so many more voices now, and so much more criticism and fact-checking, that it's impossible to dress up such presentation as objectivity.

The truth comes out better, I argue, in this cacophony. (And the whole of judicial system works the same basic way.) Sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

clint said...

AFG said...

Why does Ann always think people should take anything Meade says seriously. He is a commenter on a blog. Are people supposed to automatically give him credibility because he is intelligent and writes a lot of comments on Ann's blog? He doesn't seem to have the credentials to be given any special attention.


AFG-

If your comment were intelligent, like Meade's, I might treat it seriously despite your lack of credentials.

As it doesn't, I won't.

Scott M said...

@Joe

They make us memorize each article under the lash so, "vision" and "reactionary thugs of running dog monopoly capitalists" although that's a trick question because you didn't include "bourgeoisie" in front of "running". I remember my lessons well, comrade.

The tatt still itches though.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





OK, you’re right Garage…Prosser “leaked” his too. Of course he wouldn’t have had to say ANYTHING, but Abramson and Bradley decided to leak and smear….if they’d kept their mouths shut, they wouldn’t look like Knuckleheads and the WI Court would look a whole lot better.

But, of course, in Garage World, the “proper thing” for Prosser to do was to let himself be publicly smeared…and by proper we mean that which advances the Left’s Narrative and Cause.

Seven Machos said...

Who does have the credentials to be given special attention?

Are we seriously arguing about credentials now? Please list some properly credentialed people who can be listened to.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





Man how could I have forgotten “Bourgeois”????????????????????? I guess I’m not credentialed enough to comment any more….

virgil xenophon said...

I witnessed some slug of a reporter from some Madison outlet (can't remember which) on CNN yesterday speaking on this subj. He was almost totally incoherent. Not ONLY was he minimally informed of the details then in the public domain at the time--AT BEST--but he seemed to have some speech impediment or was a mongoloid idiot from birth. The dullard struggled to even pronounce words--let alone words in a grammatically correct sentence--let alone a sentence that could be parsed for conceptual clarity. Long story short: the guy was almost TOTALLY incoherent, let alone capable of imparting insight or knowledge. THIS is the journalistic face that Madison presents to the world, I thought? "Laughingstock" does not EVEN begin to apply...

Irene said...

Seven, that's probably true. But while the one-sided coverage has become more obvious, people seem to be less willing to consider the opposite side.

Seeing Red said...

Another feminist makes women look dumber than a box of rocks.

My friend called it in 2004 - women shouldn't vote.


U decimate the cause you purport to support, Emily.


Go back to school, child, or hire a good attorney to get your tuition back.


U was robbed of an "education."

& sue your parents for good measure, they didn't make u think critically or prepare u for real life, either.

"Credentialed" & lazy - thinking your "credientials" will save you from your cluelessness is not the way to go round in life, child.

kate said...

Projecting much?,

Thank God there's none of that going on around here.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Are we seriously arguing about credentials now? Please list some properly credentialed people who can be listened to.




1) Anyone from the Isthmus, of course
2) Anyone from Media Matters
3) Anyone form the Wisconsin Centre for Investigative Journalism
4) Anyone with a degree in Feminist Studies/Womyn’s Studies
5) Justice Bradley.

frank said...

Heh, in 1L profs teach lawyers are "social engineers" not, as common sense tells us, a "social disease"--Ann/Meade--as you seek political asylum North of Hwy 8 just say, "Frank sent you" and you will be issued your basic survival gear: 22 cal rifle to cling to and your Bible. Maybe there is some efficacy to the 19th Amendment after all. Welcome!!

AprilApple said...

Facts? Truth? Principled judgment?

Emily isn't smart enough to deal with such concepts.

On the other hand-
Wish-facts, lies, half-truths, slime, and an ideological narrative push -
Those are more Emily’s speed.

Drew said...

when asked about his sources and if they actually said that this is what happened, Lueders said no, that the sources only stated that this allegedly happened.

His unnamed sources state that it allegedly happened? So they weren't witnesses either? Everything Leuders said was hearsay?

Seeing Red said...

credentials


typo'd

Ann Althouse said...

"You never answered the question why you feel Leuder's story is a "hit piece", but not the "alternate version" of Bradley attacking Prosser, that was conveniently leaked to the media."

I sure did. It's because he published without probing into the obvious issues that would have produced the alternate story that the Journal Sentinel was able to come up with in less than a day. He didn't ask the normal questions that a journalist should ask and ran with the story that hurt a person he was ideologically opposed to.

TosaGuy said...

Jounalism in Madison: How a reporter gets his or her information.

"I heard from my friend's cousin's half-sister's lesbian girlfriend who once delivered a pizza to capitol protestors that she heard that David Prosser assaults puppies and kittens by putting his hand behind their ears and moving his fingers in a way that causes them to writhe uncontrollably."

Resulting Headline: David Prosser abuses animals, is he Wisconsin's Michael Vick?

Fred4Pres said...

Peter Hoh said...
Fred, Althouse is a liberal gadfly.

Sullivan is a conservative gadfly.

6/29/11 9:19 AM


You are not serious are you? I agree I do not think "conservative" when thinking about Ann Althouse, but Ann is Phyllis Schlafly compared to Excitable Andrew.

Seven Machos said...

people seem to be less willing to consider the opposite side

This is something I've been struggling with. A law professor named Cass Sunstein wrote a prescient book predicting that we would see much more stratification of opinion because of the Internet.

At times, I think he's right and it saddens me because I strongly disagreed previously. At other times, I call bullshit and say that it's just old people talking. Nostalgia is a powerful force. People always remember the past as being a more unified place, when it just wasn't. Take Reagan, for example. Everybody didn't love him. Or take World War II. Everybody wasn't for it. Or take the Civil War. It did tend to cause friction.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Nostalgia is a powerful force. People always remember the past as being a more unified place, when it just wasn't. Take Reagan, for example. Everybody didn't love him. Or take World War II. Everybody wasn't for it. Or take the Civil War. It did tend to cause friction.






Spot-On…after the fact, we tend to remember the Conventional Wisdom of the era…example the number of people who SAY they went to Woodstock, versus the ACTUAL attendance.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Irene said...

Seven, JFK is a good example of that, too.

I just get frustrated because people will try to make a legitimate point to me about their views, and then they cite Huffington Post, Media Matters, Isthmus, Think Progress, etc etc etc.

I know what would happen if I linked to a Fox News article on my Facebook page. I already get nudged if I link to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, for example.

t-man said...

Seven -

I am with Irene, to an extent. In law, there is a split between counseling a client and advocating for a client. In the counseling mode, you have to take a giant step back and try to be as objective as possible ("How strong is your case?", "What is the likelihood of success on such-and-such a claim.") You also check your analysis with others to try to weed out the effects of remaining bias and anything you might have overlooked.

I had believed for a long time, that the "counseling" role was similar to the role of a scholar -- or an objective reporter.

The role of "advocate" is entirely different. There, you present your client's case in the best possible light, and paint your opponent in the darkest light (bounded by the Rules of Professional Conduct).

What Irene is seeing, and what I am dismayed at, is academics and journalists adopting the "advocate" role in place of the "counselor" role -- without any binding rules of conduct. It may be true that some individuals have always acted that way, but there were some institutional constraints imposed previously that have gone out the window today.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

What Irene is seeing, and what I am dismayed at, is academics and journalists adopting the "advocate" role in place of the "counselor" role --





Since the 1960’s that has been the accepted role of the Professor and Judge…they just wanted you to THINK they were “counselors.”

Irene said...

t-man, the example that comes to mind is that of a sharp criminal defense attorney who wants his client to win, but cares little about whether the client did it.

Everyone is entitled to a strong defense. But people should care about the truth, too.

Seven Machos said...

I just reread a really awesome book called Perjury, about the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers brouhaha. Great, very evenhanded book. I highly recommend it. (There's the original as well as an updated version.)

Anyway, it dovetails nicely with the strange fascination among leftists about post-war America and how allegedly unified it all was. Utter, total bullshit. Anyone who thinks so would or should be disabused by reading Perjury.

AllenS said...

garage mahal said...
You never answered the question why you feel Leuder's story is a "hit piece", but not the "alternate version" of Bradley attacking Prosser, that was conveniently leaked to the media

garage, check this out:

galdosiana said...
Lueders was on the CBS news last night (Channel 3) talking about his breaking of the story, and when asked about his sources and if they actually said that this is what happened, Lueders said no, that the sources only stated that this allegedly happened.

What do you think of that, garage?

Seven Machos said...

I am all for the throwing away of objectivity. I'm no relativist; I believe in truth and objectivity and all that. But I also don't believe that anyone who is writing or saying anything doesn't have a point of view, a narrative, and a set of assumptions.

I say get it all out there. Speak! Speak! Opinions are like evidence. The more that get out there, the more likely we are to arrive at a proper and right conclusion.

Jasmina Boulanger said...

"I care about truth and the ability of human beings to reason and to interact with each other."

That is why I read your blog. Thanks for writing.

Phil 3:14 said...

Professor stated:

I was calling for even-handedness and consistency.

And I called for principled consistency

I'm a law professor blogger, probing with questions about neutral principles, the actual facts, and political interests.

Why would you be so careless?

I'm not a political ideologue. I don't even care that much about politics. I care about truth and the ability of human beings to reason and to interact with each other.

Do you really mean all that? Surely you appreciate that while you may ask lawyerly questions about the Prosser/Bradley conflict, this blog is much more about the comments a post generates. Surely you understand that you're judged by the company you keep.

Ms. Mills apparently has chosen to preach to an Amen choir. You, OTOH,do at times post things that might disturb strict right wing sensibilities BUT the outcome is similar.

This indignation must be feigned or you are naive.

Seven Machos said...

Why is Althouse responsible for her commenters?

Id she is, isn't Blogger and its owner (Google, I believe) even more responsible? And isn't the United States, where Google and Althouse and virtually all commenters are located -- isn't this country ultimately responsible?

Well, Phil, you can say what you want about this commentariat. But I'm not going to sit here and listen you badmouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!

Fred4Pres said...

sixty grit, I disagree slightly about a .22. You can stock up lots of ammo cheap and you can kill lot of food with one if things get tough. Hell, you can even kill a deer with a .22 if you aim for its head.

Hitmen also often use .22s because the bullet will bounce around inside the skull (granted you have to be close).

And they are a great rifle and pistol for the wife and kids to shoot. My wife digs her Buckmark. My son loves his Wildcat.

Then again it is also a good idea to have (at a minimum) a 12 g shotgun, a 30-06rifle, a .300 Winchester rifle, and an M1911 .45. Just sayin.

Phil 3:14 said...

This cat fight feels a little this

MayBee said...

Reminds me of Amanda Marcotte's big think piece on how Anthony Weiner was a victim of sexual harassment when he got #hacked with a weiner picture.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

"It's not over 'til we win."

"By any means necessary."

Sliming you is just a necessary means.

Carol_Herman said...

By the process of elimination, it's a good guess to say that Abrahamson "released" her version of the story into the media.

It couldn't have been the janitor! Loo-der wouldn't have taken his call. And, if the janitor appeared in person, he would have said "clean here, later."

Why did Abrahamson go public, might be one of the best unanswered questions, yet.

She had LIED to her colleagues. She was hiding out in friendly territory, in Bradley's office ... When lo and behold ... the 4 other justices found them. The crook went home.

We also know that Bradley tried to "push" some sort of Dr. Phil moment on Prosser, the Wedensday, following this Monday "discovery" of the lying and hiding Abrhamson.

She probably thought she had a good plan!

Prosser, she figured, would be forced to resign. Or, at worst, would be disbarred before August 1st rolls around.

Who swears in justices?

What if, ahead, in a fit of fancy, all Abrahamson can find to hold up is the Yellow Pages?

Then, the "choke hold" story would bloom, again.

And, gullible reporters would buy it.

May I suggest they begin their next attack with "It's a dark and stormy night" ...

It's a familiar opening line. And, you could fit "choke hold" right in there.

By the way, Prosser won't be resigning.

And, another law professor, Jacobson, is predicting one, and maybe even two, of these dingbats will have to go.

I'm betting Abrahamson is now getting plenty of heat. This is what happens when "reverse phone calls" take place ... And, there must be some phone calls, dear old crazy shirley, cannot avoid answering.

Okay. Maybe, when she answers her phone, she puts her fingers on her nose, and says: "Shirley's not here. Can I take a message?"

Meanwhile, I extend my condolences to dear crazy shirley on her lost dignity. She didn't have to lose her dignity. But it got pulled off. Sort of unmasking her for the incompetent she is.

While on the cocktail circuit, the thin ladies murmer insults at Ann Althouse. They resesrve even more bitterness toward Meade.

These are just lessons in bitches being jealous. Pay them no never mind.

It's good that Emily Post is dead. When she went so did the parade of hats and white gloves ... where women couldn't leave home without them.

What a bunch of frivolous dunces. Did they really think their attacks would fly?

Were they, instead, hoping, it would go unnoticed? Like a fart that doesn't produce noise?

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

In this case, it is because the witnesses to the event are judges who, in all likelihood, saw two complete assholes (Prosser and the other judge) acting like the complete assholes they are.

A vitriolic, uninformative statement worthy of seven pendejos.

Seven Machos said...

A vitriolic, uninformative statement worthy of seven pendejos.

Why? Do these judges sound like reasonable, likable people to you> I am genuinely curious. Please do elaborate.

AFG said...

I understand that not everyone should be judged purely on their credentials, but as a general rule priority has to be given to people who have consistently proved that they know what they are talking about. Going back to Ann's post about Robert Farley not replying to Meade's point-by-point refutation of his whatever he was criticizing at the time, it seems pretty easy to look at Meade's comments and say "who is this guy, and why should I care what he has to say?" Especially considering the other countless commenters who expect their stuff to be read and responded to. All these replies are really beefing up my commenter portfolio! Thanks

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lincolntf said...

Fred4Pres said...

Speaking of smallish weapons, today I expect to receive an honest-to-God slingshot in the mail. For real, I'll be a 40-year old man with a "Dennis the Menace" toy.
I ordered it for my nephews to use when they visit in a couple weeks. We're taking a hike/exploration trip on some land whose owner I know, and I want to spice things up for them. Of course I will be required to "test" it many times before they get here.

Ann Althouse said...

"Anyway, I'll probably be banned in 5 minutes, so I better make it count."

Well, we actually have Emily Mills on video saying to Meade "I never ban anybody" (after he said "Thanks for not banning me"). So, if you are banned, I will respond with that clip. Let me know.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Direct quote from the Lueders interview: "Well, what our sources reported was that there was an allegation." Re-reading the original story now, I can see how artfully it was written to give the impression that the sources had first-hand information, without actually coming out and making that false claim. (Video available here; clip is titled "Bill Lueders Talks About Reporting On Supreme Court Incident".)

F said...

Ann:

I read Emily's post as projection -- she accuses you of what she herself is guilty of. I see more and more projection from the liberal side of U.S. politics. I can't tell you if it's laziness or malign intent, but there certainly is more, especially from this White House. F

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lonetown said...

Does George Soros give any money to the Isthmus?

Who knows these days? The rats are coming out of the woodwork.

Seven Machos said...

who is this guy, and why should I care what he has to say?

Tom Brokaw. B.A. degree in Political Science from the University of South Dakota.

Dan Rather. Bachelor's degree in journalism from Sam Houston State University.

Walter Kronkite. Attended the University of Texas at Austin but did not graduate.

Lots more. Want me to continue?

garage mahal said...

It's because he published without probing into the obvious issues that would have produced the alternate story that the Journal Sentinel was able to come up with in less than a day. He didn't ask the normal questions that a journalist should ask and ran with the story that hurt a person he was ideologically opposed to.

The only person on record, Bradley, supports Leuder's story. We have no idea who the sources are the MJS reported, and you still will not apply that same scrutiny to them.

Why have they not gone public?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

What Going back to Ann's post about Robert Farley not replying to Meade's point-by-point refutation of his whatever he was criticizing at the time, it seems pretty easy to look at Meade's comments and say "who is this guy, and why should I care what he has to say?"





H’hhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm OK,

… not replying to AFG’s point-by-point refutation of his whatever he was criticizing at the time, it seems pretty easy to look at AFG’s comments and say "who is this guy, and why should I care what he has to say?"
So there you go…UNTIL AFG presents some form of credentials I see no need to respond to him.

Dad29 said...

Emily Mills just wrote her application thesis for Abrahamson's speechwriter slot.

That's all. Don't take it personally.

bagoh20 said...

The reason that such poor journalism is so widespread today is simply the low bar we have now, the ease, the ubiquity. Hell, even I'm writing stuff thousands will see. That's brand new, and demands that we be more discerning.

People used to laugh when you said your source was that you "read it on the internet".

Today, that where all information comes from, but it's still just people writing stuff out of their heads.

In the past, you had to learn to write, get hired, perform well, move past others at your institution through merit and competition.

Now you just write a lot, and most writers get their readers by being provocative, period.

Seven Machos said...

Why have they not gone public?

Because this is a tempest in a teapot that is immensely embarrassing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and, in going public, they would further destroy a sense of collegiality that is obviously already in tatters.

Nothing is going to come of this, dude.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

The only person on record, Bradley, supports Leuder's story. We have no idea who the sources are the MJS reported, and you still will not apply that same scrutiny to them.

Why have they not gone public?






*WOW* That’s Garage’s defense…”neener-neener only Bradley has talked she must be right?” Dood, I wouldn’t want to be you.

Lincolntf said...

Hmmm, I don't know if I've been banned/blocked. I posted a comment at "Isthmus" that stayed up for a little while (it was sardonic and critical, but not "hateful" or "abusive") and now seems to be gone. Anyone see a comment by me around the Meade/"Jeremy" discussion? I had the 13th comment when it was up there.

S. said...

There is a great quote from the movie “Broadcast News” circa 1987 that speaks to what has happened to the mainstream media.

“What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.”

I read the Althouse blog because Ann does a bang-up job of linking to a variety of sources. She asks us thoughtful questions and also challenges us, as citizens of the world to ask questions, to probe, to consider and to investigate.

I tell my son (age 15) that reading the news takes work. It takes time. One must investigate many sources before drawing a conclusion. We have become a society of the “quick read”. We want all the facts in quick bullet points of 10 words or less. Gathering the facts takes more time. Time is a precious commodity and many do not want to invest.

This Isthmus author is coaxing along flash over substance. And bit by bit eroding our standards for what passes for thoughtful, investigate journalism or commentary.

Say it with me.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

James said...

Comment #13 by Greg is there.

Ann Althouse said...

"I read Emily's post as projection -- she accuses you of what she herself is guilty of. I see more and more projection from the liberal side of U.S. politics."

Yes, that was one of the points I was trying to make in the post.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Lincolntf will not be banned. He will merely be disappeared. He was never there, so he can never be banned.

garage mahal said...

Because this is a tempest in a teapot that is immensely embarrassing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and, in going public, they would further destroy a sense of collegiality that is obviously already in tatters.

Um, the two unnamed sources are alleging Bradley charged Prosser with fists raised. Pretty strong accusation no?

But they won't go public. Again, why are those sources more credible and undeserving of scrutiny that the source that did go public that backs Leuder's story?

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- Who is saying that any opinion or report is not deserving of scrutiny? Your assumptions are crazy.

Lamar63 said...

@Lincoltf

I saw your comment earlier but now it is gone. Your comment was that Althouse has shredded this article.

Ann Althouse said...

As to my commenters, what they say about me is that I encourage free speech and debate. They also say something about the left and the right. Why don't more lefties stick around in here and talk? It seems to me that they can't take it and don't like to be challenged so much. Many of my posts take liberal positions. I don't push candidates in elections, though sometimes I explain a vote, like when I said I was voting for Obama.

One of the stupidest aspects of Emily Mills's post is that she calls me a Prosser supporter, but I never even promoted Prosser when he was running for reelection. I wrote about the campaign, but I didn't recommend Prosser. That's pretty damned even-handed of me. But do I get any credit for that? Does Mills even know that?

Apparently, I'm just somebody she's heard about from other people. I'm toxic because I seem right-wing. Better not read me or even regard me as a human being!

Jon said...

garage said: The only person on record, Bradley, supports Leuder's story.

Not true, Prosser has also gone on record with a statement disputing it. And Bradley is the one with the burden of proof.

S. said...

Hmm. Attempted to post twice but comments won't show. IS there a lag?

Lincolntf said...

Wow, I really have been "disappeared".
Yes, Lamar that was the comment. I don't recall the exact phrasing, but did it strike you as being particularly offensive or "bannable"?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)





Again Garage that’s what you got? Next you’ll be accusing Breitbart of something…I understand James O’Keefe was in WI once, without a Pimp Suit on, mayhap he’s involved, too.

Leuder’s “story” is about an “Alleged” attack, his sources don’t say that’s what happened, they say that’s what’s “Alleged.” Heck, that story is so porous I wouldn’t even call it a “story.”

I might as well say, “Four People told me they heard Garage Mahal liked Weiner pRon.” And if Garage doesn’t respond to my “story” I guess it means there’s something to it.

Right now you’re flailing around, like Bull Connor, your side is losing, deservedly so and you are simply adrift and agog.

S. said...

(Third times a charm. Apologies if this posts more than once.)

There is a great quote from the movie “Broadcast News” circa 1987 that speaks to what has happened to the mainstream media.

“What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.”

I read the Althouse blog because Ann does a bang-up job of linking to a variety of sources. She asks us thoughtful questions and also challenges us, as citizens of the world to ask questions, to probe, to consider and to investigate.

I tell my son (age 15) that reading the news takes work. It takes time. One must investigate many sources before drawing a conclusion. We have become a society of the “quick read”. We want all the facts in quick bullet points of 10 words or less. Gathering the facts takes more time. Time is a precious commodity and many do not want to invest.

This Isthmus author is coaxing along flash over substance. And bit by bit eroding our standards for what passes for thoughtful, investigate journalism or commentary.

Say it with me.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

bagoh20 said...

30 years in business, thousands of meetings, often very heated discussions that sometimes decided the economic fate of many people. but I never saw anyone get physical like this. Not even get out of a chair.

It's pretty sad that people in this particular position would act like this. These people are deciding how the rest of us should be allowed to act. It's just embarrassing. The best our universities can produce. If these people had worked in business (non-professional) part of their career, they would be better people, better judges and better examples.

Seven Machos said...

I heard Emily Mills likes Limp Bizkit and the whole nu-metal scene.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Amusing exchange from later in the Lueders interview:

"Were your sources eyewitnesses to this incident?"

"Our sources were people who we considered to be reliable, given that there was a small pool of people who were witnesses and are covenant[?] to the sources, that we would protect their identity, I can't say more. But at some point the sourcing of this isn't all that important any more since the Justice who, one of the principals in this case, Justice Bradley, has come forward publicly and given her account of things, which is that Justice Prosser came toward her in anger and put his hands around her neck in a chokehold."

As godd as an admission that the truth doesn't matter to this guy; the important thing was getting the accusation out there. At this point I vote for "evil".

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

I heard Emily Mills likes Limp Bizkit and the whole nu-metal scene



It must be true, she hasn’t denied it yet, has she?

Brennan said...

These people are deciding how the rest of us should be allowed to act.

In Substitute Gods we trust.

You can replace the real one or the thousands of years perceived one.

Seven Machos said...

I just feel like if this Mills character supports Fred Durst, if those are her credentials -- how can we take her seriously?

Lincolntf said...

Ha, my comment is back! Maybe The Supreme Ruling Council Central Committee has issued me a reprieve?

gregq said...

Seven Machos said...

Why? Do these judges sound like reasonable, likable people to you? I am genuinely curious. Please do elaborate.


Bradley or Abrahamson (sp?)? No.

Prosser? Yes. Prosser got physically attacked for stating an opinion, defended himself, and left it at that. Bradley and A tried to turn Bradley's bad behavior into a crime by Prosser, at which point he defended himself. Nothing at all wrong with that.

E.M. Davis said...

Althouse needs her own show on Nickelodeon.

Seven Machos said...

Gregg -- When was the last time you were attacked for just sitting around, being reasonable, in a judicial setting?

Also, if I recall correctly, and I do, this isn't Prosser's first alleged foray into assholery.

NYTNewYorker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
urpower said...

Uh oh, keep responding to vicious attacks in the press and you'll be as bad as Sarah Palin.

Lamar63 said...

No Lincoln the comment was fine. A little juvenile in the Nah-Nah-Nah way but nothing abusive or offensive.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Seven Machos said...

Also, if I recall correctly, and I do, this isn't Prosser's first alleged foray into assholery.

How many allegations add up to one fact?

Seeing Red said...

OTOH - hasn't Prosser had exposure to these womyn?

Who's to say this wasn't somewhat of a pattern & their method(s) r finally getting sunlight?


How much of their crap is he really supposed to take?


Can U imagine working with those to old radical biddies?

Daily?

It would be wearing for me & I'm a biddy!

Lincolntf said...

" A little juvenile in the Nah-Nah-Nah..."

Yeah, what can I say, sometimes I just can't resist.

Lamar63 said...

@lincolntf

I think the Central Committee read Althouse's comment about posting the video saying no one gets banned.

It seems nerves are a little frayed at the Isthmus.

rcocean said...

That's one reason lefty columnists and bloggers are so boring. They aren't really interested in facts or being fair - or in whats good for the country.

They're just pushing the party line or fighting for "their team". Their constant 'pushback' is even more tedious.

garage mahal said...

Prosser has also gone on record with a statement disputing it.

Prosser has not disputed the allegation from Bradley that he put her in a chokehold.

Seeing Red said...

Better not read me or even regard me as a human being!




Again, welcome to the club.


This is small comfort, but Sarah has & Michelle will go thru a lot worse.


So much for the "sisterhood."

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

The Palinization of Althouse.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Prosser has not disputed the allegation from Bradley that he put her in a chokehold.



Neither has he denied a Child pRon allegation nor has he denied being a UFO Space Alien….

kate said...

I see more and more projection from the liberal side of U.S. politics.

Do you get that that's projection, too?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...Prosser has not disputed the allegation from Bradley that he put her in a chokehold...."

I bet he hasnt disputed allegations that he still beats his wife.

Phil 3:14 said...

Touche Seven. I don't think you're taking this matter very seriously.

Seeing Red said...

He answered it in lawyerese, GM. Because he is one.

U have issues with the terminology & the approach. It may not have been how you would have responded if you were in his shoes.


She's accusing in the hysterical rantings of a middle-aged lady. Because she wants him gone by hook or by crook.

Tawanna & Abrahamson want someone to rid them of the meddlesome priest.



sweari

garage mahal said...

I bet he hasnt disputed allegations that he still beats his wife.

If your wife said you beat her, I would think you would dispute it, if in fact it did not happen.

Seeing Red said...

We're not dealing w/laymen here.


U want the layman approach, screaming from the rooftops.


Tawanna's the 1 screaming from the rooftops.

Brennan said...

If your wife said you beat her, I would think you would dispute it, if in fact it did not happen.

Nay. Why would you dignify the question with an answer?

William said...

Think seven machos has it right. It is axiomatic to say that judges are supposed to act in a judicious manner. I think all three judges--and, yes, including Prosser--have behaved poorly. No one is a criminal, but they are not behaving like judges....I would not characterize Leuders as an investigative reporter either. As judges are supposed to be judicious, investigative reporters are supposed to investigate. His reporting leaves more questions unanswered and begged than it reveals.....I give Althouse credit for the above piece. Law professors are supposed to be dispassionate and analytical. The above piece sounds analytical and dispassionate. She has not diminished her profession by writing it, nor have the judges nor Leuder done anything to increase the reputation of their professions.......I enjoy this scandal immensely. It's like Jersey Shore for thinking people. My only real criticism is that it lacks sex. Perhaps some journalist can turn up evidence of a past love affair between Bradley and Prosser than involved SM role playing. That would explain a lot.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...If your wife said you beat her, I would think you would dispute it, if in fact it did not happen..



Tell me garage, if some one is being choked, do you try to pull off the person doing the choking or the chokee?

That fact speaks volumes about what happened.

Michael said...

Lefties posting about "chokeholds" is about as entertaining as lefties posting on economics or guns. They are so completely out of touch, so insanely absent from the real world. Amazing. Should the good justice be administered a "chokehold" she would revise the description of the alleged attack. It makes her charge ridiculous on its face. Rather like the press alleging the use of "assault weapons" when pump shotguns are what they are referring to. Hyperbole has its uses but not here.

Will said...

Comment by Emily Mills posted at the article:

"From Emily Mills on 06/29/11 at 10:59 am

You can expect my full response to all of this in tomorrow's post.

In the meantime, to all of Ann's would-be defenders who've come rushing overe here: I think Ann is perfectly capable of and has done enough to respond to this on her own blog, but thanks for the traffic.

Laurence - It was nice to meet you in person the other day. I doubt very much that you'll love all of what I have to say in tomorrow's post, but I do hope you'll come back, regardless. There may be some middle ground yet."

Michael said...

I too have never seen a physical altercation in a business setting though I have certainly witnessed many tense and loud shouting matches and storming about and paper throwing. I did once observe a man on the phone in an airport, back when we used land lines, near a gate. The airline guy closed the door to the gate and my guy hung up the phone and dashed to the gate and tried to open the door. The airline guy said, too late, the plane has departed. The plane was clearly visible out the window and the door had been shut only a moment. My family is on that plane and I only came out for a call, my guy said. The airline man said, too bad. My guy cold cocked him, knocked him completely out. On the spot. It was a wonderful thing and I imagined for months afterwards that I was being treated better in airports.

Lincolntf said...

" I think Ann is perfectly capable of and has done enough to respond to this on her own blog, but thanks for the traffic.'

Classic example of an Internet bullshitter. Post something on the WWW, where everyone in the world can see it, but then chide people for not treating the post as a private conversation.

Michael Haz said...

Looks like Emily Mills needs another 24 hours to figure out a justification for what she wrote in the first place and respond accordingly. And we'll love it, she promises, and that matters more than any pesky truthiness.

Fen said...

Still love how incidental contact with the neck in self-defense = "choke hold"

Libtards have no shame.

Fen said...

Shill: In the meantime, to all of Ann's would-be defenders who've come rushing overe here: I think Ann is perfectly capable of and has done enough to respond to this on her own blog, but thanks for the traffic.

What a coward.

garage mahal said...

Why would you dignify the question with an answer?

His supporters certainly thought it was worthy of an answer. And judging by all the righties coming out of the woodwork and already blaming Bradley, Madison, and Mahoney? As if any of that had anything to do with what happened in those chambers. Too funny.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

His supporters certainly thought it was worthy of an answer. And judging by all the righties coming out of the woodwork and already blaming Bradley, Madison, and Mahoney?


I mean why would we blame Bradley, the person committing Assault and Battery? Golly Garage, Bradley is a Womon and Prosser is a guy, and a Republican…

Lincolntf said...

GM will be swearing Bradley's innocence even while she confesses and resigns. Poor sap.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

You never answered the question why you feel Leuder's story is a "hit piece", but not the "alternate version" of Bradley attacking Prosser, that was conveniently leaked to the media.


Hysterical.

Now the truth (there are 3 sources to what happened) is an "alternate version"

The lies you must tell yourself in order to be a leftist in this day & age seem to be endless...

Seeing Red said...

So, she's going to respond & some won't like everything she has to say?


A. I'm am not and have never been under any orders to like everything she has to say.

B. I'll probably be LMAO at what she really does have to say.

Hmmm, maybe we should have a scorecard on this.

How many liberal points or faux moral outrage will she touch upon?


wv:ashipitt

sounds like asssshhhpppppfffffft.

Trooper York said...

Wow.

This is the longest post about nothing I have ever seen.

MadisonMan said...

Your words don't matter, especially if they are inconsistent with the narrative.

It's the whiners' way.

And what Trooper said: What a long post!

Cedarford said...

AFG said...
I understand that not everyone should be judged purely on their credentials, but as a general rule priority has to be given to people who have consistently proved that they know what they are talking about.
================
That is not true, in some cases. Journalism is the only "profession" that requires no credentials.
While some would sniff that "Of course the NY Times only takes Ivies or progressive Jews from the most laudably socialist families who prove themselves in the NY Times tradition....many other news organizations never bother.

Peter Jennings was a HS dropout.
You have blonde "journalists" on air backed by nice tits and a degree in sociology from SUNY-Buffalo.
Walter Chronkite was a college dropout.
You have functionally illiterate ex-jock journalists. As well as NYC nerds who never played a game of baseball they were not picked last in that position themselves, never in a fight except a few they ran from in Grade school billing themselves as nationally-awarded (by other nerds) "Baseball, boxing, Olympic track" experts.

Female lawyers with nice tits becoming "authorities on counterterrorism and foreign policy".

Journalists with 2 years ed in poly sci at a community college emerging as "global warming, oil industry, unsafe products!!" experts.

Carol_Herman said...

It's still just the morning, and there are 180 comments, so far!

Does Justice Prosser just sit back and laugh as the tally in his favor just rises?

Don't forget, he lives in Madison, too. It seems like Abrahamson's decision to go dial this into the press ... isn't working out exactly as planned, huh?

Does shirley, now, just hide under her desk, keeping the lights off in her office?

How does she get through these days, now?

Is her office sound-proofed against laughter?

Of course, I'll guess, she denies making any phone calls TO Loo-ders.

What's the price to the bitch, for lying?

Carol_Herman said...

What if the phone records get turned over in any investigation?

How do Abrahamson and Bradley get free of the tangled web they wove?

You know, I'm glad the story continues. Just as I was glad Anthony Weiner's first approach ... blaming Breitbart ... And, hacking ... didn't work out so well.

Poor, dead, dignity. It had been such an obedient and obliging dog for awhile.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...This is the longest post about nothing I have ever seen...."

The Seinfeld thread.

Cedarford said...

Could be that both Garage and Emily Mills are writing from fear. Fear that both Abrahamson and Bradley "Pulled a Weiner".

Meaning that both nasty old ladies thought they could slime Prosser somehow..and had the bright idea that if they were laughed off on the alleged provoker (Bradley's) suggestion that the Justice she rushed with fists clenched be "voted" into anger counseling...a little leaking to the press would sure damage the Enemy and slime him good!

The problem is both ladies may have forgotten that what doomed Weiner was not his personal life, but lying to everyone. It destroyed whatever credibility he had as a Congressman.

Mills and Garage now see this could end up with an investigation determining both nasty old bitch lady Justices lied to the media and police - and the Bar or Judicial Commission may sanction them and cost them their seats.

Which makes liberal heads explode!

Jon said...

garage said: "Prosser has not disputed the allegation from Bradley that he put her in a chokehold."

Prosser's statement on Leuder's story: "Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

I hope you're not going to make an absurd argument that somehow there is any doubt as to what anonymous claim Prosser was disputing, just because he didn't actually use the word "chokehold".

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

I hope you're not going to make an absurd argument that somehow there is any doubt as to what anonymous claim Prosser was disputing, just because he didn't actually use the word "chokehold".


You’ll note he didn’t deny his anger management issues or his unwillingness to attend Anger Management Counseling. He didn’t deny provoking or INTENDING to choke either. Lastly, he did NOT deny beating his wife.

I believe this “statement” and what it elides demonstrates all we need to know about Justice Prosser.

garage mahal said...

Mills and Garage now see this could end up with an investigation determining both nasty old bitch lady Justices lied to the media and police - and the Bar or Judicial Commission may sanction them and cost them their seats.

I doubt Bradley would run to the media if she charged him with her fists raised. I don't have a lot of confidence in the witnesses though - Prosser would be the 3rd consecutive conservative justice under investigation by the WJC. All three serving currently on the court. Not sure what's up with Wisconsin Republicans, they are the biggest lying assholes in the country.

Sigivald said...

Why would you be so careless?

I suspect that in many cases such people are preaching to the choir ("rallying the base").

I've seen it on the right, here and there (and when I see it start at a place I used to frequent, they get removed from my bookmarks).

(I see it more on the left, but I can't say that that's anything but the fact that I get more exposure to left's partisan rah-rah via living in Oregon and surrounded by Progressives.)

When you're not trying to convince The Average Person, but instead strengthen or rally Those Who Already Agree At An Emotional Level, you don't need to worry about mere facts and accuracy.

Indeed, they might even be counterproductive.

Brennan said...

Emily punted. This is what Josh Marshall does all the time on Talking Points Memo. He just says "more on that later".

They basically do not have their facts straight. They need time to "journolist" their data.

Seeing Red said...

SP had 60 suits filed against her & not 1 IIRC panned out.


It's the only way to remove them from the court.


Who filed the charges?

What's their political leanings?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

I doubt Bradley would run to the media if she charged him with her fists raised… Not sure what's up with Wisconsin Republicans, they are the biggest lying assholes in the country.


Just like Weiner, eh, Garage? Why would anyone lie about that, to so many people? I think you have the wrong party or philosophy on the “lying” part Garage, I know it hurts, but it’s looking more and more like YOUR side spends a whole lot of time avoiding the truth.

But it’s become part of the reason we relish your postings, watching them turn to Wormwood and Gall in your mouth.

Seeing Red said...

After all

TO BE FAIR


If Abrahamson or Bradley is bounced - a lib MUST BE appointed.


TO BE FAIR.

It's almost like those r Kennedy's seats.

Not "The Peoples."

Brennan said...

Emily's article was removed.

Lincolntf said...

"Emily's article was removed."

Are you sure about that? I'm looking at it in a different tab as we speak. Maybe it'll disappear if I "refresh"?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"...Not sure what's up with Wisconsin Republicans, they are the biggest lying assholes in the country..."

Not very conclusive. The last several months of seeing overweight and well paid public employees throwing temper tantrums indicates Wisconsin assholery is bi-partisan.

rcocean said...

It'd be pathetic if she REALLY couldn't do better than the leftwing screed she linked to.

I think Jeremy or Lucky old sun was the author.

murgatroyd666 said...

Looks like Emily Mills needs another 24 hours to figure out a justification for what she wrote in the first place and respond accordingly. And we'll love it, she promises, and that matters more than any pesky truthiness.

Wasn't it Lenin who said that "The biggest fool of all is the revolutionary who believes his own propaganda"?

Brennan said...

Lincolntf: I stand corrected. The Daily Page just spit my browser out to a dead link.

Emily's story is still posted.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 331   Newer› Newest»