Please, don't forget to vote today. There's some vicious negative campaigning on the other side, you may have noticed, so it's become especially important to show your support each day.
December 12, 2006
Pretty please.
Please, don't forget to vote today. There's some vicious negative campaigning on the other side, you may have noticed, so it's become especially important to show your support each day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
Perhaps that other blog will win and they can proudly declare that they've beaten the Evil Althouse. Wouldn't that be a feather in their cap.
I voted for you twice today -- home and work!
I voted for you twice today -- home and work!
Say it ain't so! The peerless integrity and seriousness of these awards is forever tarnished.
I voted for you twice today -- home and work!
Say it ain't so! The peerless integrity and seriousness of these awards is forever tarnished.
I voted for you twice today -- home and work!
Say it ain't so! The peerless integrity and seriousness of these awards is forever tarnished.
Vote early and often, eh Madison Man?
Even though we may have many different opinions around here, it's nice to see us come together to uphold these fine, old traditions.
I'm on my laptop just now, but eyeing my workstation as we speak.
Ack! I meant to post that only once. I'm logged in, but there are no trashcans appearing to delete the extras. My apologies.
Pathetic. Were you not held enough as an infant?
I can't take too many more of these elections
Top that, Madisonman!
Whee. I work at my other job tonight. Two more computers there.
Ann, I hope my multiple voting doesn't tarnish your victory, should you win.
Are those flowers from an adoring fan on the occasion of your 7 millionth hit?
Don't listen to the un-serious left Ann. You can pimp for votes all you want. You deserve it~!
I mean, who else but you could fix your laser-like intellect on Jessica Valenti, and telling us what she really was up to at the blogger conference. Some on the un-serious left remarked that a thrice aged woman was just jealous of young hot women who talk frequently about being oversexed on their blog. I didn't see it at first when I seen the photograph, but thank God you did see it! "Lets take a closer look at those breasts". It takes a courageous moderate like yourself to tackle such a topic.
And who else could possibly know John Kerry was "outrageously lying!" but a moderate like you?
Lastly, just because people like Glenn Greenwald write about controversial topics like torture, and habeas corpus, doesn't mean you have to. Guess they will just have to take your constitutional law class if they want your opinion so damn bad! Then, and only then, will they discover the truths about the threat of blinking.
So, to sum up "naked lunch"'s argument:
Ann criticized a sexy female blogger for her appearance, didn't accept John Kerry's spin of a political gaffe he made, and doesn't always blog about serious subjects. Therefore she's not a moderate.
Wow. That was super duper convincing. Nice work, lunch.
When did I ever complain about the "un-serious left"? I think "humorless" is a more likely Althousian adjective. Everything's a big outrage! My making fun of that Clinton lunch photograph was just one more thing they took way too seriously. Oh no, mocking the way a woman is posing! How despicable!
One of the main things that draws me to writing about something is the desire to make fun of people who are taking themselves too seriously, like those bloggers who were so dorkily proud to be lunching with Clinton.
As to being moderate, I don't particularly care whether I'm moderate or not. I just say what I think. I don't call my blog "The Moderate Althouse," so there is no false advertising here. This blog is "Althouse" -- it can't be wrong as long as it's me here blogging, which it always is.
One of the main things that draws me to writing about something is the desire to make fun of people who are taking themselves too seriously, like those bloggers who were so dorkily proud to be lunching with Clinton.
Can we on the "humorless left" also make fun of bloggers who are so dorkily proud to be linked-to by Glenn Reynolds, mentioned on Glenn Reynolds' podcast, or guest-blogging for Glenn Reynolds?
Wait, are you in love with Glenn Reynolds? Or are you just using him because you want to hang out with the Cool Kids?
I've never written the word "un-serious" -- with a hyphen -- on this blog, by the way. (I can't search the comments.) I have written "unserious" once and "unseriousness" once. But I wasn't referring to any human beings. I used it for tone of the term "midlife crisis" and the design of an iMac.
Naked Lunch's idea of me is undoubtedly formed by reading bloggers who don't like me and, more important, don't understand me. They don't pick up humor very well, and if that TRex post I linked to today is any indication, they require broad, sledgehammery style humor to be amused. Life among the grim is so hard. Gotta feel a little sorry for them. They really are the sort of people who need a hyphen in the word "unserious." It's so diffi-cult to under-stand things.
"Guess they will just have to take your constitutional law class if they want your opinion so damn bad!"
Well, that's the lefty view of what teaching law is about: the professor's opinions!
One of the main things that draws me to writing about something is the desire to make fun of people who are taking themselves too seriously, like those bloggers who were so dorkily proud to be lunching with Clinton.
What do you call it when an older accomplished tenured published law professor feels the need to make fun of younger not as accomplished people that are proud of being able to lunch with a former president?
Is that wry humor? Surly? Boorish? Insecure? Petty jealousy? Crotchety? Or is it merely part and parcel of being cold and nasty at heart and deep down, really shallow?
Well, Reality Check, what do you call it when younger/nontenured folk insistently direct an older female law professor to act more like their stereotype of an older female law professor? I call it repressive, narrow-minded, and ineffectual.
The picture of the flower was so nice that it shook me from my laziness and I voted. I feel like I am wearing a virtual sticker. . .
Reality Check has this sick stereotype in his head of how tenured law professors should not start ridiculous blogfights based on her subjective, catty opinion of what another woman does with her breasts. What a narrow-minded sillyhead.
I realize that was intended as sarcasm, but it really IS pretty darn stupid to think that a blogger should refrain from making a catty remark just because (a) she's a law professor and (b) somebody else in the blogosphere might have a hissy-cow about it.
I doubt Ann anticipated the "omfg she made fun of teh b00bz" reaction of the lefty bloggers.
It's awful that this whole thing has turned out this way. The only thing remotely ironic about it is the way they're the 'moderates.'
Revenant:
Actually, I AM a 'lefty blogger.' And I'm not having that reaction. In fact, I just voted for Ann. Again.
Not that it matters, though. I'm not sure why people are getting that twisted out of shape over an internet poll. It's not like they make the winner the President of an Iraqi province or something (though the losers...)
Indeed. It is nice to see that stereotype shattered.
If I ever thought there was a stereotype that professors don't insult people or argue over trivialities, it was shattered when I got to college and actually *met* some.
And it is so childish for anyone to get annoyed just because they're accused based on a subjective interpretation of a picture of using their breasts to get ahead in the world and of simultaneously betraying their own principles and those of all women everywhere.
Uh, yeah... let me know if that ever happens, k?
One of the main things that draws me to writing about something is the desire to make fun of people who are taking themselves too seriously, like those bloggers who were so dorkily proud to be lunching with Clinton.
Y'think mockery could come in the form of a vote?
Running by not running and then running around telling everyone you are not running because of a phony self-manufactured issue appears to be as effective as someone else mentioned earlier (on a previous threas).
I did not realize the depth of hatred some people have for Ann. Knowing the incandescent level of hate many people have for Ann Coulter it was eye opening to read,"She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero."
Personally I save my hate for terrorists, pedophiles, and teh Washington Redskins.
It isn't hate, it's envy.
"She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero."
This makes me wonder how much Coulter, Cicero, or Althouse the commenter has actually read.
There's some vicious negative campaigning on the other side, you may have noticed, so it's become especially important to show your support each day.
Or, to put a slightly more illuminated spin on the matter, it makes it all the more important to completely ignore popularity contests that have daily voting and allow themselves to be ballot-stuffed.
Or one could just ignore such contests of popularity altogether regardless of their mechanics. If one did not partake in this particular form of patting the upper crust of blog society on the back, one could not be called names for being...enthusiastic about the process. :) /Jeeves (as in "& Wooster")
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the vote totals for one particular blog in one particular contest have jumped dramatically each night for the last two nights.
I have this vision of someone who works graveyard in some large office signing on to all the different computers there and casting votes. Maybe it is someone who, after they get off work, is driving around to every BestBuy and Circuit City in town and voting from all the different computers on display.
Then again, that blog could just have a very large following in Samoa.
You know, it's actually been bothering me that I didn't say something yesterday.
I know these are just Weblog awards. In the big scheme of things, they are a mere speck of dot in the order importance.
But it bothers me, the multiple voting per day on different machines--and also the promoting of that.
I'm probably just a stick-in-the-mud, but it I don't like it, and it goes against my sense of fair play.
Mock me if you wish, but it would never, ever have occurred to me to vote on multiple machines. I still won't--even though, in my home alone, there are seven of which I could avail myself and a bunch of others in another place I do work.
Just had to get it off my chest. I wish I'd said something when I visited this thread yesterday; it was wrong of me that I didn't.
You're probably right, derve, but the reason I mentioned it is that I see the numbers when I do vote about 9PM Pacific (or later) and then again about 6AM Pacific and it seems the vote totals jumped both nights by 1,500-2,000 votes for one blog in particular while all the others carried on with their typical trends. I did not observe this happening in any other contests that I voted in (but I've only voted in 5 of them), so it did make me imagine some pretty funny scenarios to explain it. As I said, I am probably wrong.
I agree, reader. I have access to 3 computers here and never thought of it (and haven't done it). Personally, I think the whole thing is silly. Although I am sure that the organizers are earnest, the nomination process is far too subjective to take it very seriously. Being able to vote every 24 hours (without using other computers) distorts the process as well.
You are right, derve.
I earnestly wish I had never written what I did given the unintended result. My mistake.
Is it just me or do those flowers look like um.......
that does it for me, i'm voting for Ann!
Post a Comment