There's been a lot of talk about me lately in the left-o-sphere. And, sorry, but I'm not going to link to it. You know how to find things. Anyway, for the most part, I don't answer back. As my mother used to say: You'll only encourage them. But I just want to comment on a new meme that's emerged in the anti-Althousiana.
(Oh, I'll do one other thing -- with a link. Check out the way the sublimely wonky Harry Farrell and Dan Drezner devote the first 11 minutes of their new Bloggingheads episode to talking about me... and the furious comments section that spirals out of it that's nearly all about me and not all that global politics stuff about the EU and so forth that they go on to chew over for the next 50 minutes. When anti-Althousiana goes viral, even the wonkiest academics lose their immunity. My favorite detail: Both Drezner and Farrell go on record as not particularly liking my blog. For context: I was pretty mean to Drezner here. Drezner attributes to me the notion that I don't accept disagreement on my blog -- an idea he seems to read into something I do say, which is that some people get what I'm trying to do here and some don't. See the quote from Jack Balkin in the masthead, above.)
Anyway, back to my point: the new meme about me in the left-o-sphere. Based on my "American Idol" vlog, where I hold up a glass of wine -- look, it's Jordin Sparks, reflected right here! -- and eventually take two sips of it, they are all: Althouse is a drunk, Althouse's drunken videoblogging, etc. This is the way these people see having a glass of wine? How very prissy and puritanical!
March 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
175 comments:
I don’t think they’re sincerely prissy. That’s just their cover.
I think they all do illegal drugs. That’s why they get so worked up about data mining intended to catch terrorists.
"...[t]he furious comments section that spirals out of it that's nearly all about me and not all that global politics stuff about the EU and so forth that they go on to chew over for the next 50 minutes."
Unfortunately, I may have inadvertently encouraged that degeneration by challenging a point Henry made in his - how ironic - characterization of comments made here in the bhtv thread the other day. In my defense, I think it'd have gone that way anyway - which generates more gossip, reality tv or ABC news? People tend to react more strongly to human interest stories, and people are interested. Personally I think it's more like a drive-by assassination attempt than a car wreck, but Dan and Henry have the right idea.
Simon, they made it the first segment, and they talked about how the bhtv comments were skewed against me. I read that as a vigorous demand that anyone who supports me ought to write over there. It's their own damned fault if the response to what they themselves highlighted swamped the subjects that are their natural, wonky subject matter. I appreciate your response to their demand. They clearly imposed a negative interpretation on the failure to comment. When anti-Althousians swarmed the comments section on the diavlog I did, the read it as a gauge of how much people object to me. Any subtlety to silence was lost on them, so I am glad someone is presenting things from my side over there.
I don't see a lot of the Anti-Ann stuff becasue I don't read too many political blogs. If I want to get my heart racing and adrenaline flowing I just have to pick up my local paper. However,
For what it's worth, I think the problem is you are an intelligent, articulate woman of moderate to conservative political views who is not afraid to disagree with the received wisdom and express your opinion about that disagreement. The operative word there is "woman." Your gender makes you a tratior all that is right and good in the eyes of the typical left-winger. And you know traitors are always treated more harshly than the rest of us deluded tools of Haliburton Conspiracy.
Ann - I'm sticking with my previous characterization, that it's hard to hear anything over the cacophonous roar of a thousand axes being ground at once.
It seems more important than ever to speak loudly and clearly when poisonous whispers are given volume by multitude. I'm just disappointed - sick, in fact - that it seems to resemble less a reenactment of "300" than the charge of the light brigade. We happy few.
Tim -
I hadn't thought of it in those terms, although there may be something in that. I think you're right to identify a sense of enraged denial of something they feel entitled to, though.
It's noble that its probably someone who's snorting a line off a chest that's been thrust in Clinton's direction who is the one who is concerned about the moral fabric of our country and saving it from Boozer Ann! If they were only drunks, at least a few of them would become more pleasant. Their stuff's been stepped on with Drano one iteration too many.
You know what - I have a little thing on my wall with a quote that has appeared on this blog before, one that seems especially apt this week:
"Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity."
Is Ann really that conservative now? Of course, I see things from the right of her, but she sure looks moderate to me. I know it was more than two years ago, but when she posted that long post about the pros and cons of Bush and Kerry, and why she ended up behind Bush, I heard a moderate speaking. She was giving Kerry a lot of points for things that I would have been downgrading him for.
Rather, I see a couple of things. First, a former liberal who has snuck off the plantation, and needs to be coerced back (but I suspect the coercing is backfiring). Secondly, her blog (usually) makes people of both sides relatively comfortable. It is a nice meeting place, which is sorely lacking. But that gives her a bigger presence on the left than some more conservative blogresses. And finally, I wonder if Ann sometimes just eggs them on. Maybe for the hit count, but most likely just because it makes life more interesting.
Just some thoughts.
Timothy K. Morris does a far better job of explaining the reason for smears like this than my repeated attempts over the past couple of years to say the same thing. They also do it because they expect to get a reaction from you.
Look, there's no shortage of legitimate reasons to dislike you. You can't blame them for taking shots at the occasional "target of opportunity" like you toasting the video camera with your wine glass.
Mets rotation struggles badly. Phillies win NL East.
Jeremy Bonderman wins AL Cy Young, after Santana’s elbow finally gives out.
Daisuke Matsuzaka lives up to the hype, winning 18 and striking out 200.
Chris B. Young wins NL Rookie of the Year.
Red Sox win World Series again.
Thanks, Roger. Maybe I'll leave Ann alone and start up Straight Flushing again...
Naaaah!
Don't know about Farrell but I used to read Drezner pretty regularly until he totally jumped the shark in the run up to the 2004 election.
He did a faux-debate over who to vote for that was so transparently biased for Kerry it made your teeth hurt. He basically compared everything Kerry promised to do, without any estimation of how Kerry's plan could be implemented, against actual events during GWB's first term, without regard for Bush's role in the events.
He's Andrew Sullivan for people who are wonk-posurers.
If you're making enemies like these, good for you!
Hey, I think I have the new political divide down:
Liberals get snarky over drugs (Limbaugh / Oxycontin, G W Busn / Cocaine, Althouse / Wine),
Conservatives obsess over sex (Clinton / Lewinski, Clinton / Jones, Clinton / Flowers)!
"I wonder if Ann sometimes just eggs them on"
I'm beyond egg and into vortex. Didn't I get an amazing vortex going this week? It's my personal best.
they talked about how the bhtv comments were skewed against me.
The bhtv comments are always skewed against you. Doesn't matter what you do. The blogging heads where you got angry was just red meat for the people who already hated you.
Don't kid yourself, Fen. She minted a whole bunch of new Althouse haters this week. Just look how many of the BHtv complaints were from first or second-time commenters, rarely moved to speak until they felt compelled to ask Bob never to have her on again. It was quite moving, actually.
Just look how many of the BHtv complaints were from first or second-time commenters, rarely moved to speak until they felt compelled to ask Bob never to have her on again. It was quite moving, actually
That was Glenn Greenwald. :P
I am a big supporter of Althouse and her blog and the way she runs it. However, I don't recall having ever watcher watched any of her videos or clicked on any links to internal blog related squabbling kind of stuff. As such I would never make it to a board in order to provide defensive posts. Who here actually watches that kind of stuff or spends time thinking about it?
Ughh. What would you guys do about Greenwald if it weren't for that spurious accusation? I mean, if the proof were as solid as Patterico would have everyone believe, he probably wouldn't have been hired by Salon.
Sockpuppetry is a much more serious allegation than it sounds. Just ask Sprezzatura.
So, seriously, folks, do you think Bob Wright is the kind of person who would be less likely to have me back after this, more likely to have me back after this, or exactly the same amount of likely to have me back after this?
Here's a good reference point (Bob talking to me about the haters, saying, among other things "I think the more they hate you the better" and "It's good for ratings").
Here's another (Bob getting really angry at Mickey Kaus -- not a unique example).
I do find it interesting how the Left is always appealing to conformity. "X" is cool & hip, "Y" is not. And don't you want to run with the popular crowd? Be accepted by all us cool cats? Most of the Left's positions appear to be more about what they believe is Popular than what they believe is Right.
Similar issues with the Digg comments re Little Green Footballs. They've perpetuated this myth that LGF is a racist site, and as a mob they bury any LGF article that makes its way to the top of Digg, regardless of content.
And Dem Underground has an action group that attempts to "astroturf" search engines, so that if you try to find info on say, "Joe Wilson Lies", your first 20 hits are all lefty talkng points.
So the online Left is busily creating and reinforcing their mythology.
Althouse is now one of their myths.
I can only repeat what I said before, which is that I am amazed that the whole thing went as far as it did. Especially considering all the other problems the world faces.
What would you guys do about Greenwald if it weren't for that spurious accusation? I mean, if the proof were as solid as Patterico would have everyone believe -
IP addys don't lie.
Any gay man who leans conservative becomes a target.
Yeah, I know. The only reason I don't get attacked is because, AFAICT, no one knows I exist! :-)
Any gay man who leans conservative becomes a target.
Yeah, I know. The only reason I don't get attacked is because, AFAICT, no one knows I exist! :-)
Yes, Doyle, it is probably true that a lot of new people don't like Althouse now. And some don't want her back on bloggingheads, too. A lot of people probably don't want a lot of other people back on blogginheads for one reason or another. One thing for certain, though: more people watched that episode than any other. And most of them will watch again when Ann does it - like you, who come here every day, they will find it irresistable. In fact, I'll wager a few of them are now checking in here daily, too. Funny how that works.
Blogger comments are freaking out again. Says my post isn't posting, yet, it is.
Ann -
You know he was kidding about wanting conflict for publicity purposes, right? It's a joke. He doesn't want lunatics screaming incoherently about "assassination" and "context" every time someone dares to bring up something that reflects badly on them (which they instigated in the first place).
And at least Mickey was the person Bob was mad at, instead of a readily available proxy for the people he was really mad at.
Hopefully that's the end of your run.
I spend a lot of time (probably too much) time over on the left side of the blogosphere. You know what, on the major sites where serious politics are discussed, and even the parody sites, Ann is rarely mentioned. (I'll have to admit, I was tickled to death when Jesus' General became concerned about Islamic Death Rays shooting out of Jose Padilla's eyes thanks to Ann.)
Yet, regular readers of this site know that there is a vast left blogosphere conspiracy (most likely organized by Kos, because he, after all is the puppet master) to destroy Ann because she is not a liberal. Now apparently, the leftwing blogosphere is abuzz with talk of her being a drunk because she took a couple sips of wine on a vlog about American Idol! She won't dignify these vicious attacks with a link, but we all know how to find them.
Problem is, when I try to find them, I can't. Come on Ann, give us a hint. It isn't Kos, Digby, Kevin Drum, or Eschaton. Your constant victimization seems to be either extreme narcissism (people are picking on me, therefore they must be paying attention to me) or paranoia.
People will come hoping to witness a train wreck. If they don't get it, many will leave. Others will stick around and, in the process of listening, think "Hmmm. Good point, that," or something to that effect, during the give-and-take and their cartoon image will fade away.
Good point Freder. Althouse-hatred is actually kind of a niche thing in left Blogistan. Thers, Sadly, No!, Scott Lemieux, T-Bogg... Those are the only ones who can be counted on to mock Ann when she does something especially embarassing. Atrios is no Ann fan, but he mostly just links to LGM.
The GFR meltdown didn't even get a diary on Kos, that I saw; though the video was too good for Crooks and Liars to pass up.
Fred: I'll bite: Who is Jesus' General?
Ann, my 9th grade English teacher told me something that I will never forget:
To avoid criticism - do nothing - say nothing - be nothing.
You need to butch-up and stop playing the victim.
Vortexed Eggs -- a new Chez Althouse recipe!
The GFR meltdown
More mythology.
I think the problem with your live-blogging of american idol was that it is amazingly hard to imagine you would think that your real time reactions to the idiotic show were a subject that should be shared. It was the intimacy and the loneliness and the irrelevance which caused many of us to think you might have been drunk.
Secondly, her blog (usually) makes people of both sides relatively comfortable. It is a nice meeting place, which is sorely lacking.
Are you serious man? Ann has insulted me personally and frequently calls me a troll. I'm a big boy and I can take it, but this site is hardly a comfortable for the lefty commenters. Granted I can be a little abrasive and sometimes throw out a personal insult or two. But I have never called anyone a cocksucker, a traitor, anti-American, an enemy-lover, implied that they should be tried and executed for treason. Yet all these insults have been hurled at me.
I can't recall Ann ever calling a rightwing commenter a troll (Ann's definition of "troll" is apparently limited to those commenters who directly challenge the veracity of the statements made in the main post). Nor have I ever seen her call any of the more extreme right wing commenters (e.g., Cedarford) on their frequent off-topic vicious, hate-filled, bigoted ravings that often contained veiled threats.
A few days ago Ann banned Reality Check, apparently for using several aliases and other unnamed offenses. Cedarford by far is the most offensive poster on this site, yet I have never seen her as much as warn him about his language or his abuse of other posters.
Peggy, you must have watched it if you know that those were real-time reactions and were bothered by "the intimacy and the loneliness and the irrelevance." So that worked, didn't it? True, you didn't like it - but that's no big deal. Others did. Just like some enjoy watching 24 and others don't - the major difference being that those who don't usually don't watch it confirm they don't.
Or were you just repeating something you read someone else say, Peggy?
(I'm not interested in American Idol so I didn't watch Ann's performance.)
He doesn't want lunatics screaming incoherently -
Then he should start screening his own comment board...
Look, its ridiculous to insist that a commenter shouldn't be on because she got angry with someone. If that were society's standard, Mathews and Olberman wouldn't have an audience. There are other reasons they bhtv herd doesn't want Ann back, and its dishonest of them to pretend otherwise. They're making mountains out of molehills because they want to shut her up.
peggy: it is amazingly hard to imagine you would think that your real time reactions to the idiotic show were a subject that should be shared
Then you should work on your imagination. I enjoy the frequent disccusions she generates re Project Runway, Top Design, Survivor, etc. Its fun to share other povs, and its nice to occasionally bicker back and forth about something other than politics.
Fred: I'll bite: Who is Jesus' General?
Best right wing site on the web. Gen J.C. Christian, Patriot (An 11 on the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender), monitors the web for all things French and Homosexual to make sure they don't undermine the Glorious Christian Cultural Revolution.
Ronin, you made the assumption that Peggy was "bothered" by the video, or the performance. Peggy was commenting on Ann's *behavior* in the video. Her degree of acceptance of the video was not noted in her comment - as you have incorrectly commented on.
Thank you, Michael. I stand corrected.
[shrug] "It is amazingly hard to imagine [anyone] would think that [Peggy's] real time reactions to [Ann's vlog] were a subject that should be shared"
Freder: Guess you missed this disclaimer:
This is political satire. Everything posted here should be understood in that context.
The General is a Democrat. NTTIAWT ;-)
(BTW, I don't read Cedarford for the reasons you outlined.)
As collectivist Statists, leftists in general are validly dubbed "puritanskis". Because they seek power over all aspects of individual as well as communal behaviour, you will hear objections to raising a glass in Toast: Not because you're sipping wine, though Global Warming hangs in the balance, but because you presume to live a bit without permission.
If your Toast was vetted by Mao or The Great Stalin, all would be well; we must kowtow before our thuggish masters. But should you purchase Vino Veritas upon the open market (horrors), then actually emit personal opinion in form of a public address, Big Al and MzBill among others will rise in rage to ensure that no surprise declamations ever pollute their noosphere again.
That's what nihilistic narcissists all do: Force silence, and to be quite sure about it-- you're better off dead. Craven and corrupt as Puritanskies always are, they weave police-State webs, lurking like spiders to envenom and oviposit slavish eggs in you.
As collectivist Statists, leftists in general are validly dubbed "puritanskis". Because they seek power over all aspects of individual as well as communal behaviour, you will hear objections to raising a glass in Toast: Not because you're sipping wine, though Global Warming hangs in the balance, but because you presume to live a bit without permission.
If your Toast was vetted by Mao or The Great Stalin, all would be well; we must kowtow before our thuggish masters. But should you purchase Vino Veritas upon the open market (horrors), then actually emit personal opinion in form of a public address, Big Al and MzBill among others will rise in rage to ensure that no surprise declamations ever pollute their noosphere again.
That's what nihilistic narcissists all do: Force silence, and to be quite sure about it-- you're better off dead. Craven and corrupt as Puritanskies always are, they weave police-State webs, lurking like spiders to envenom and oviposit slavish eggs in you.
freder, You mean I'm not a lefty? (pout)
I had to laugh -- this is totally off topic -- about the letters to the editor re: the Supreme Court race in the local paper. One complained that a candidate did work for the ACLU!. The horror. And another said the same candidate associates with lawyers!!!! Somehow, these right-wing wackos never ponder Ms. Ziegler's cringeworthy Gut-Checks on whether she should recuse.
MM:
You mean I'm not a lefty?
Everything's relative, you know ;-)
Ms. Ziegler's cringeworthy Gut-Checks
Small gut or large gut?
This is political satire. Everything posted here should be understood in that context.
[....]
I actually found it a bit endearing, to tell you the truth. It was kind of like performance art. But it was also troubling, since it seemed to by an invitation to intimacy over a vast, anonymous medium.
Actually, though, the point of my post was to respond to Ann's comment that those of us on the left who had a strong response were prissy and puritanical. That's a baseless attack, one with no foundation in reality. Just name calling.
That's a baseless attack, one with no foundation in reality. Just name calling.
Kinda like the attacks on Ann re her criticism of "feminists" like Valenti?
fen, isn't this entire discussion about the liberal response to ann's american idol vlogging? Wouldn't that make liberal's comments about her response pertinent? Our would you prefer to engage in baseless speculation?
Freder: Guess you missed this disclaimer:
What? JC Christian really isn't a conservative? He's just mocking all those people? Next you'll tell me Jonathon Swift really didn't want to eat Irish babies.
Ann, I think the issue with your American Idol vlogging is not the fact that you took a couple sips of wine on camera but that you had obviously taken a whole lot more than a couple sips off camera.
You might want to play back that vlog and if you can't admit that you were at more than a little drunk when you recorded that (and consequently set yourself up for ridicule since we all like making fun of drunks), then perhaps you should examine your drinking habits.
peggy: fen, isn't this entire discussion about the liberal response to ann's american idol vlogging? Wouldn't that make liberal's comments about her response pertinent? Our would you prefer to engage in baseless speculation?
From the link in the original post:
Jacob Levy: She was the one who found Feministing blogger Jessica guilty of having breasts while standing in the same room as Bill Clinton.
You were complaining about Ann's comment that those of us on the left who had a strong response were prissy and puritanical. That's a baseless attack, one with no foundation in reality. Just name calling.
I found your complaint to be ironic.
Pyrthroes
You got to hit the road with that sermon man. I think all of us can identify a little with the Stalinist and Maoist spiders everywhere spinning and weaving police-state like webs entrapping us all in communal leftist cocoons.
On the other hand it might have just been some familiar foes having fun using Ann as source material.
Sorry, but why do I care? Isn't there enough catty, self-referential nonsense on the left side of the blogosphere? I wouldn't even bother if I wasn't avoiding doing my taxes. Get over yourselves and add some intellectual value! That goes for the other guys too.
Freder Frederson said...
"the issue with your American Idol vlogging is not the fact that you took a couple sips of wine on camera but that you had obviously taken a whole lot more than a couple sips off camera."
What's your evidence for that assertion? And don't say res ipsa loquitur, because that's bullshit and you know it. In what way was her demeanor in this vlog a significant departure from preceding vlogs and podcasts?
It was kind of like performance art.
Sheesh, and the right wing criticizes modern art! Getting drunk, watching American Idol and recording yourself commenting on it is not even "kind of like" art unless your definition of "art" includes paintings of dogs playing poker.
You weren't drunk?
That says a bit...
As the New Yorker used to say: stories I never finished reading:
There's been a lot of talk about me lately
Get over yourselves and add some intellectual value!
Must be a new guy.
In what way was her demeanor in this vlog a significant departure from preceding vlogs and podcasts?
Her eyes were unfocused and kind of bleary. Her movements are clumsy. She is constantly flipping and playing with her hair. She is talking too loudly and laughing inappropriately and seems fascinated with ridiculous trivialities (even more so than usual). If she were a sixteen year old girl, I could pass off the behavior to youth. But seriously, fifty-something women don't act like that unless they are drunk.
Really Simon, anyone can see she is half in the bag. Even the comments on this site note that.
So, seriously, folks, do you think Bob Wright is the kind of person who would be less likely to have me back after this, more likely to have me back after this, or exactly the same amount of likely to have me back after this?
I think he's made that pretty clear.
You drank in public. It's your Macahca moment.
How silly. I think a previous post was spot on: their stuff's been stepped on with Drano one iteration too many.
First, 'Dogs Playing Poker' is obviously as much art as most of the crap that gets govt funding. The fact that it's 'populist' art just puts the wind up elitists is all. (Didn't the small original recently sell for a million or 2?)
Second, if Feder can assert drunkeness on Ann's part can we not assert drunkeness when he posts here, based of how much of what he posts reads like that irritating drunk next to you in a crowded bar sounds when he Just_Won't_Shut_Up?
Hey. I support you. Just because we are supporting two parties - does not mean I don't. I do read yoyur blog everyday.
You drank in public.
Yes. God Forbid. Please restrict your drinking to private places in the future! Think of the Children. And you did it TWICE in ONE WEEK! Watching AI, and vlogging the podcast.
Y'know -- if you were a native, you'd be knocking back Brandy Old Fashioneds (Sweet).
Ed Driscoll has been saying something similar about the sinistral side of the blogosphere and politosphere for a while now.
When you so innocently asked her why the lefty blogs hate you, you had to know she would at least mention the Jessica Valenti incident.
I found Garance's "they hate you because you hate them for hating you" comment to be especially stupid. Alot of her commentary was like that.
And if you despise the Vortex so much, why do you keep jumping back in? Your side has spent a ridiculous amount of time & energy frothing over this.
This is getting so tiresome. Today the big complaint is that Ann drinks wine...? Not at all drunk, a little drunk, a lot drunk - who cares!?!? What the hell is this? Nannies Against Drunk Blogging?
No, what it is really is finding something anything to grab onto to criticize someone you don't like. I swear it's like a bunch of fifth grade girls. Did you see what Ann did today? Oh. My. God. She's SO not sitting with us at lunch.
Is there any other high-traffic blog that gets as much advice, solicited or unsolicited, on what its writer should be doing, positions she should take or not take, things she should or should not write about? A lot of people seem to insist on defining not just the Althouse they see, but the Althouse they want to see. It almost seems like you arouse a protective instinct, even among your adversaries. Why do the people who seem to dislike you keep coming back and commenting almost every day? It's like they're your crabby uncles and aunts trying to tell you who you should date and where you should apply to college. And now, they're harassing you about your drinking!
That's it: This is a big, dysfunctional family. Even "dave" -- he's the bratty, anti-social little brother. And those of us who like you...we probably spend a little too much time worrying about you. You can certainly take care of yourself, as you've shown repeatedly.
Roger, I'll bite. What is the "mullet of the week" site?
First, 'Dogs Playing Poker' is obviously as much art as most of the crap that gets govt funding. The fact that it's 'populist' art just puts the wind up elitists is all. (Didn't the small original recently sell for a million or 2?)
And here we have the right wing definition of art. "It must be art, look how much someone was willing to pay for it."
Freder - I'm not convinced.
John - great memory! That clip looks pretty fortuitous now.
Did you see what Ann did today? Oh. My. God. She's SO not sitting with us at lunch.
Thank you, Jennifer, for putting all of this in perspective.
Sorry, but I drunk blog, not Ann.
Farrell is kind of a parody of a liberal professor who believes that he knows something important, when all he really knows is academic garbage.
johnstodder....your comment was right on!
Is there any other high-traffic blog that gets as much advice, solicited or unsolicited, on what its writer should be doing, positions she should take or not take, things she should or should not write about?
Is there any other high-traffic blog where the writer is the focus of the blog and spends so much time discussing her status in the blogosphere, who likes her, who doesn't, who is saying what about her?
But thats all about a Moderate Dem being stalked by the Nutroots as a Heretic. If the Left stopped the Inquisition, Ann wouldn't have to defend herself so much.
Cigarette?
Is there any other high-traffic blog where the writer is the focus of the blog and spends so much time discussing her status in the blogosphere, who likes her, who doesn't, who is saying what about her?
Is there any other "high traffic" blog (and I use the term loosely) where the writer routinely posts videos of herself going off on drunken, batshit insane rambles and thinks they're somehow proving a point?
Boy, things have really accelerated lately for Ann, eh?
I think the regular readers of this blog have a favorable view of Dr. Althouse.
But as far as the rest of the net, I think she has jumped the shark. She is a punchline, a joke now.
I don't think that bell can be un-rung.
I feel bad for her, but she's a laughingstock now, fair or not.
Oh, dave™©, you irrepressible little scamp you.
By the way, you're supposed to use toilet paper for that, not your hand!
(Cue laugh track.)
"A few days ago Ann banned Reality Check, apparently for using several aliases and other unnamed offenses."
That is not why I banned Reality Check. He crossed a line in a post I deleted quickly, which I'm sure few people read. So you really don't know.
peggy: " I think the problem with your live-blogging of american idol was that it is amazingly hard to imagine you would think that your real time reactions to the idiotic show were a subject that should be shared. It was the intimacy and the loneliness and the irrelevance which caused many of us to think you might have been drunk."
Thanks for demonstrating the priggishness that motivated me to title this post they way they did.
Imagine thinking that a person enjoying some junk TV and a glass of wine is just so terribly tragic. No, I can't be feeling pleasure. I must be suffering! How could someone just enjoy such a thing? Any appearance of pleasure must be drunkenness!
Thanks for you concern, Peggy. You prig!
Oh, there's more from Peggy: "I actually found it a bit endearing, to tell you the truth. It was kind of like performance art. But it was also troubling, since it seemed to by an invitation to intimacy over a vast, anonymous medium. Actually, though, the point of my post was to respond to Ann's comment that those of us on the left who had a strong response were prissy and puritanical. That's a baseless attack, one with no foundation in reality. Just name calling."
Yeah, and your comment WAS puritanical and prissy!
And twice you've talked about how bothered you are by intimacy.
QED.
Dr. Althouse is an outspoken personality. that's going to polarize immediately - like Greenwald.
She wanted the environment to be fun, vibrant; unfortunately she showed two sides to herself that weren't particularly flattering: an outburst of anger and a ... casual, wine drinking side, neither were really that flattering.
But what do you make of it? If you take her advice, like she says, and aim for a more fun, energetic public discourse, then I agree with her - big deal, she drank some wine and lost her cool. What's the big deal? Are we so tabloid oriented that we just want to destroy all personalities? Why not just forgive her and let it go? (Forgive is too strong, but you catch my drift.)
I guess a reason why some wouldn't want to is that she doesn't really seem like a listener, all the narcissist stuff comes from this, I think.
It's a blog about her opinions, though, so who cares?
I see that side, too. I guess from my own view, she's a bit too mercurial, which to some is her charm.
I didn't like her bit when she called for civility and then called someone an idiot. I know she had her reasons stated, but it still seemed off.
Eh, I'm not one of the haters nor the lovers. But she does polarize, and that has to be a sign that her stated goal of making things interesting is working; she's quite the lightning rod.
Funny, I'm tired of 'color,' though, in blogs. My attempts to debate via comments sections on various blogs have met with utter failure. The vicious self-righteousness is so ubiquitous that I prefer more sedate posts now. I'm worn out from the spite and outrage.
freder: "Ann, I think the issue with your American Idol vlogging is not the fact that you took a couple sips of wine on camera but that you had obviously taken a whole lot more than a couple sips off camera."
Not so. But think what you like. You Puritans need to believe that an elevated mood is caused by substances and not naturally high spirits and the pure joy in living.
I always find it amusing when people visit someone's blog and then get mad when the blogger talks about themselves
Regular readers, especially those who actually *like* Ann, know that her vlog was not "drunken" and probably found it charming. I appreciate Ann's intelligence but also (maybe even more so)her whimsy (for example, I loved the video of her at the coffee shop where you didn't see her, but saw what she was doing...drinking coffee, opening her book, etc.).
Btw, there does seem to be a massive contingent of people (lefty's? i don't know) that like to grab onto some moral high ground whenever someone shows they drink (at all, much less a lot), and throw daggers down at the pathetic drunks below them. This happened recently in the mommy blogging world, which I doubt many here read regularly. A mommy blogger was on The Today Show and was ambushed by Viera and a female psychologist about how horrible it was to have drinks at a play group (the mom was on there to talk about how women can be adults even when they get together with their kids), or even in front of children ever. There was a strong "women can't be trusted" vibe, since there was no mention of men having beers at family bbq's (in front of children!). It does make me wonder if people would be making a big deal about this if it had been a male blogger holding up a glass of wine to the camera.
p.s. first time commenter, please be gentle
Ann, how would your friends describe you?
Would they say articulate, verbal, sensitive, passionate, stands up for herself, prickly?
All those can be both good and bad, but I'm curious if those are the top ones?
You've chosen to let yourself be vulnerable just after a big hoopla with the Bloggingheads thing. That's either impressive or reckless, either way. But I have to admit, I find that appealing on sheer principle. You're quite a character. but I dont' know - are you a judgemental friend? a quick tempered person?
(I realize that the blogginghead moment may not be instructive; as I said, the viciousness out there is just amazing. Even if it did seem so disproportionate and uncalled for.)
Richard
" What the hell is this? Nannies Against Drunk Blogging?"
Just one of many great comments. I'm LOL here at a rest stop with WiFi somewhere in Iowa. Must stop. Must getting going. Gotta make Wichita by cocktail hour.
I think you were in the wrong, Althouse, and that you are compounding your mistake. I think that much of the criticism (from which word I'm explicitly excluding the standard, ad hominem knee-jerk vitriol from some quarters) is valid. The fact that you are dismissing it out of hand, and more important, the way you are dismissing it is very disappointing, particularly since this does indeed now appear to be a pattern to me, one that has been developing for months now.
Didn't I get an amazing vortex going this week? It's my personal best.
With regard to creating a vortex, it may very well be your personal best. With regard to just about everything else, not so much.
I've largely kept my opinions to myself, about this latest brouhaha (and others, for that matter). I've purposely refrained from commenting on others' blog posts because I hadn't weighed in directly and specifically here. (Given that I've followed this blog from very early on, am a fan of much of it, and I think, could be fairly classified as a regular, it seemed dirty pool to approach it otherwise.)
But now there are a couple of other places where I want to respond (specifically to a sentence Simon wrote, as it happens, at one of them), and so I feel compelled to state where I'm coming from to your face, so to speak, first.
It's possible to modyly like--or at least appreciate if not always agree with--someone's work AND to seriously dislike, even disapprove of, how they handle certain areas or treat people in certain situations. Blind loyalty is more about the sightlessness than fidelity.
reader_iam
(By the way, I went back and watched that AI vlog [this season, I've been skipping AI posts no matter who does them]. Althouse doesn't strike me as drunk, and her personal style seems the same as in other appearances, except that she seems end-of-day tired. I don't think the video quality of this was all that great and her face was a little out focus, sort of smeary, so maybe that's partly what's going on. ALSO, the vestiges of the day's eye make-up are smeared around her eyes, and I think that accounts for that appearance.
FWIW.)
Christy said:
"OT, but I've been mulling over something a pal told me recently. She once ran a drug rehab program and said that we stop maturing when we start self-medicating regularly. Is that true? (I know we have some phychologists here.) It would certainly explain much of both extremes of the blogosphere."
Christy, yes, that is the standard psychology response. I worked in a substance abuse program and this is precisely what the clients are told everyday.
and I think, it's true. You deal with people who've been partying or just using since the teen years, and they act like teenagers; they flirt and tease and play like adolescents. They rage in tantrums, etc. It's interesting.
But it extends beyond addictions. Schizophrenics who have their first break often stay near that level because psychosis is so destructive and terrifying that they stop having normal adult relationships. Very sad.
Richard
modyly = mostly
MiniMoe:
"I'm not one of the haters nor the lovers. But she does polarize[.]"
Doesn't your first sentence tend to undercut the second? ;) If you migrate to neither pole, just how polarizing can someone be? ;)
"I guess from my own view, she's a bit too mercurial, which to some is her charm."
Quite.
"I'm worn out from the spite and outrage."
Believe me, after this week, I know how you feel.
Well typed Richard! I do not know if it is TRUE, but it is a useful concept that often plays out in the lives of people with addictions.
I think that part of addictions is a toxic coping response to an emotional issue. Using the toxic response, drinking, gambling, whatever, serves as a substitute for the emotional growth needed to address the problem. So that part of our lives does not mature while we medicate it.
I see using as a way of coping like snipping the wires to the engine light in my car. It makes the annoying light go away, but it certainly does not address the problem and leads to a worse situation.
Trey
"Must getting going. Gotta make Wichita by cocktail hour."
For the 3rd or 4th time this week, I bust out laughing at work. I love this vortex thing...
Well, she has a maddeningly quality that is both refreshing and that also pisses me off (!).
She's thin skinned and has sharp elbows.
I have felt any number of reactions and emotions to her, but I almost feel like I need to process my reactions, as they say in psych.
I have a complex reaction to her, and while any given emotion tilts to an extreme, overall I appreciate the complexity. So she polarizes me, but unevenly and haphazardly.
So I would say that those two sentences don't negate each other. But they do confuse me.
But all the vitriol, that's just ridiculous. She isn't Michael Richards, she hasn't DONE anything. She's a diva, drawing attention to herself and her little little corner of the net. But so what? A glass of wine? I'm more surprised she let her guard down after the Garance (or whateverher name is) episode.
She seems to be a complex person. And a pain in the ass, too! (I mean that in a good way)
Richard
Ann Althouse said...
"Must getting going. Gotta make Wichita by cocktail hour."
And the beauty of it is that hereinafter, every time you have a drink, you're sticking it to your critics. It's wonderfully, life-affirmingly symmetrical when things you're minded to do anyway get under the skin of your critics.
She isn't Michael Richards
True. Michael Richards was actually getting heckled, whereas Ann merely perceived heckling because she's a paranoid egomaniac.
Also, Richards was sincerely apologetic, whereas Ann continues to make ridiculous claims about how she "called [GFR] on" her sly journalist tricks or something.
I have an anecdote for you about paranoia.
I was the house manager for a group of adult mentally ill men in an affluent suburb in a major city.
One of the men, my favorite of all-time, was about 5 10'' and about 260lbs! Every night, EVERY NIGHT, he thought he was going to be killed by the cops at 2am - because of that ONE line in the Golden Earring song, The Twilight Zone.
Now, THAT was paranoia. We'd be eating a piece of pizza, watching pro basketball, and he'd be laughing, then in the middle of it he'd look to me and say "Are you going to help them kill me tonight?"
And I'd say "Of course not." And he'd have tears in his eyes and thank me for not killing him, then we'd go back to watching TV.
Man, that was weird.
When you say paranoia, that it what I think of. As far as Ann goes, I really don't know. She may be thin skinned, but we know the unspeakably vile comments she also gets. It's hard to know what the proper response to that should be. I mean, we know the adult, polite response. But wave after wave? It's gotta wear you down some, make you bitter a bit.
Not that her tirade was ok, but the anonymity of the net looses the worst in us, I think.
Richard
Well, having seen the vid of her and Garance, I agree.
Garance may have mentioned earlier 'tricks' of getting people to ope nup, (which, by the way, I learned in psych interviewing too), but it just didn't seem tricksy when she was talking to Dr. Althouse.
And the 'Jessica Valenti breast controversy', that seemed utterly polite and almost medically sterile a way to refer to it. So I agree that was a poor time for a tantrum.
If Dr. Althouse is STILL claiming that she was calling her on tricks, I don't think so, the video doesn't read that way to me.
But I thought she apologized already, and had stated that she had apologized...
Richard
I enjoy this blog and many others, and I enjoy the comments, but sometimes (like today), I'm left with the overwhelming feeling that all of us should just back away from the computer a little more often.
She apologized after the tirade but then defended herself here, especially in comments. Saying Garance was really out of line and isn't so very young so she doesn't need defending (and then, humorously, instructing people to go defend her (Althouse) on BHtv's comment board.)
reader_iam said...
"this does indeed now appear to be a pattern to me, one that has been developing for months now."
Could you elaborate on that point?
"But now there are a couple of other places where I want to respond (specifically to a sentence Simon wrote, as it happens, at one of them)"
Specifically which one? I've written a lot this week on this subject, in many places.
WRT your observation about the vlog, I suppose I have to be candid at this point and admit that at first glance, I actually thought that Ann looked very tired, too. And at that time, I felt very tired and upset about the whole thing, so in view of subsequent comments by Ann, I'm inclined to write it off to projection.
Richard - re the video, please refer to my comment here.
Simon:
I have to take care of my hungry goblins right now. It's dinner time. But I will reread your entry in a few hours. Course, by then this thread will be likely dead.
But I'll look at it more closely. And then I'll rethink...
That is not why I banned Reality Check. He crossed a line in a post I deleted quickly, which I'm sure few people read. So you really don't know.
It must have been really bad if Cedarford is still around.
minimoe But as far as the rest of the net, I think she has jumped the shark.
Then you guys must see lots of jumping sharks. What a scary world you live in! Floundering in all that hyperbole. Esp whenever a woman gets angry and creates a chilling effect on your emotional stability. How do you survive the day?
And the 'Jessica Valenti breast controversy', that seemed utterly polite and almost medically sterile a way to refer to it.
"seemed" is an interesting word here since, unlike you, Ann could not see Garance and only had her tone as a clue to whether her intent was malevolent. And "breast contraversy" is Valenti-spin of the incident, so framing it that way is "vitriloic" in your world of jumping sharks and floundering self-esteem.
This brings to mind The Iceman, "Frosty" Albert Collins classic I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin'. That's right - I don't care what the people are thinkin.
You Puritans need to believe that an elevated mood is caused by substances and not naturally high spirits and the pure joy in living.
That a middle aged woman of theoretically such high intelligence would derive such pure joy and naturally high spirits from watching American Idol that she would act like an addle-brained high school freshman is probably sadder than the same woman getting drunk and acting like an addle-brained high school freshman.
Being surprised that you are ridiculed for acting like you are in eighth grade shows a complete lack of self awareness.
Specifically which one? I've written a lot this week on this subject, in many places.
As to the latter: I'll say. I was referring to something you wrote at Drezner's. I also want to say something over at BHTv with regard to the Reality Check's banning, which did not have to do with the BHTv thing, but a specific comment on a totally unrelated thread here, and for a specific reason it's not for me to share, but which is valid.
However, that will have to wait, as will a response to your first question, Simon (although, whether I want to go into all that or not, at least in a comments section, is a different).
I **truly** am on the way to a cocktail hour to celebrate a couple of birthdays, followed by a pedicure and my first-ever facial, followed by a nice, expensive dinner and some late-night revelry. Real life calls! I am going with a decidedly lefty friend, who seems inevitably to find decidedly righty people with whom to debate, so I will have my hands full in the middle.
I am traveling via cab. Thus, you can extrapolate that should I be foolish enough to attempt to answer that question, or any other question, in the wee hours of Saturday, it will indeed be--how to put this delicately--an alter ego doing so.
Real life calls!
(Remember that old Tracy Ullman show, when Fox first started. Where she comes out on stage and says something like, "You still here? Go home! Go home!
I feel sort of like that.)
Freder: That a middle aged woman of theoretically such high intelligence would derive such pure joy and naturally high spirits from watching American Idol...
Yes, that must really bug you. Can you guys give us a list of "guilty pleasures" we're not allowed to enjoy? I'm sure you could just rip it from the Sharia playbook.
Reader -
Okay, I'll go check it out. And my email address is in my Blogger profile, so if there's stuff you want to go into off blog, that option's there.
Fen said...
"[U]nlike you, Ann could not see Garance and only had her tone as a clue to whether her intent was malevolent."
At an absolute minimum, she also had what Garance had said earlier in the diavlog to go by, which tends to support the conclusion she reached.
"And 'breast contraversy' is Valenti-spin of the incident."
I wouldn't say it's necessarily vitriolic, but it's necessarily a loaded phrase. Referring to it as the "Jessica Valenti Breast Controversy" plainly implies that the speaker thinks the controversy was about breasts, ex visceribus verborum.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily vitriolic
Me neither, just noting that by their [Lefty bloggers] own standards, Garance's comments were "vitriolic"
How sad that some people get so little pleasure out of life that they cast aspersions on someone who enjoys one of God
sorry ... one of God's greatest gifts to humanity, the grape, in all of its wonderful varieties.Maybe the leftists will understand the joy of experiencing a great Chambertin as being the equivalent of experiencing the socialist millenia. Ann I will enjoy the grape with you whenever you happen to be in southeastern VA.
Freder Frederson asked the question I had (who actually give her crap about drinking a glass of wine?), and while I might have missed it (lots of comments to scroll through) I haven't seen anyone identifying any culprits--just a lot of people assuming somebody did that.
It wasn't Tbogg, and it wasn't Scott Lemieux. Sadly, No isn't loading for me (they've had one or two DOS attacks recently), so I don't know if it's them. It wasn't Thers, at least as of this morning (haven't checked in since).
So...who is it?
Or is Ann referring to commenters to someone's blog, and deliberately obscuring the distinction between commenters and bloggers?
Oh good god, the idiocy.
Ann Althouse's skewing of the blogworld's fun with that embarrassing episode into an anti-drinking thing is inane - but expected.
Idiots here going along with it: depressing.
Idiots.
/my bad, I forgot we get bonus points for ignoring stupid trolls
Freder said something insightful, I think, with this: "Is there any other high-traffic blog where the writer is the focus of the blog..."
Now cutting off the qualifications, I realize I don't read any other high-traffic blogs that are actually about the person (or persona, perhaps). Going through the ecosystem, I don't even see any that I immediately recognize as such.
I don't know why this should be. Is Althouse the Puppet Master? Or is she just a good looking chick with a sharp wit who's aggressively centrist? (And look how she's gotten me analyzing her situation: She's the Puppet Master.)
I do like the way the anti-Althousians showed up to validate her theory, though. How many scolds there are, warning her of her impending doom.
A vortex indeed.
People say I'm crazy,
Doin' what I'm doin',
Well, the give me all kinds of warnings,
To save me from ruin.
asx: Henry was exactly right: the overpreponderance of comments defending Ann were from Simon and Fen
TwinSwords: Simon wrote 11% of posts defending Ann. Fen wrote 14%. Thats truly amazing, and it proves Henry's point
Henry's simply wrong. If you go back and read the comments, Simon and I are mostly repeating the same thing over and over again to educate the ignorant Althouse-attackers on the facts. If anything, it shows that so many on the Left came here with false talking points.
/clarify
Not wrong per se, he jsut drew the wrong conclusions. If the Left had been more intelligent about all this, I wouldn't have had to keep repeating myself.
I have to confess, I really don't know anything about the wine-drinking AI vlog post. Since I don't watch American Idol, and don't like anything about it, I also skip blog posts about it. The music on that show is 99 percent unlistenable, and an ever-present reminder of how much permanent cultural damage Garth Brooks and Celine Dion have done.
Here's my imitation of every female American Idol singer: "Wohewohewohewoooaahh...(dramatic pause)...Meeeeeeeeee!"
Here's my imitation of every American idol male singer. (Tears sleeves off short to show off impressive guns. Rolls around on the floor for awhile.)
If Ann want to set up a video drinking contest when "The Sopranos" start up again, I'm there for that! Also "24," "The Office," any "Law and Order: Criminal Intent" that Vincent D'Onofrio is in, and major league baseball.
I don't think there are enough drunk vloggers out there, frankly, and I'm happy to support Ann if she wants to, once again, be a pioneer. I'd also check out a bunch of potheads watching, say, "Caddyshack" or "Napoleon Dynamite." (I have sinking feeling that might be a "dave™©" thing.)
I don't really like to crosspost, but I feel that my response to Reader's post at Dan Drezner's blog entry raises issues that have come up in the debate here, so I'm going to do so.
* * *
I concede that was an inapt choice of words on my part for me to say that "the people who know the back story think [Ann]'s clearly in the right," both because it's overly broad, but more than that, because the principle point I've tried to drive home these last few days is precisely that it's the wrong standard to carefully dissect the divalog and determine ultimately and conclusively what Garance's intent was (i.e., who was "in the right"). I don't accept that the relevant standard is whether, at five days distance and after careful evaluation and calm reflection, Ann did or didn't misjudge Garance's intentions.
Rather, I suggest that the standard of review should be a fairly deferential clear error standard: even if an alternative interpretation of Garance's remarks is possible, even if there is evidence to support that alternative reading, are those alternatives so plainly compelling and self-evident that we can say with definite and firm conviction that Ann's reaction was a clearly and totally unreasonable interpretation? That is, was it a reasonable snap judgment, in the context of that moment, after Garance's comments earlier in the divalog, and in view of the way Garance's fellow-travellers in their so-called "movement" have treated Althouse over the last few years, to interpret those remarks as a snarky attack?
A better phrashing would have been that "the people who know the back story think she's clearly within her rights." (I do accept, as I must, that even that is a generalization, and I concede that it may be possible to be familiar with all of the context, and accept my view of the standard of review, yet still conclude that Ann's judgement was unreasonable, but I find that very hard to imagine.)
I suppose my request would be for you to clarify what you mean by saying she was in the wrong. Do you mean that you reject the standard I advance, or do you accept it and say that her conduct failed even that test?
The other point that I must pick up is the implication that I'm unwilling to accept criticism of Althouse, or that I'm being excessively deferential to her for reasons left unstated ("gratitude does not require blind loyalty"; "[l]ife's a whole lot messier and nuanced than that, which understanding you demonstrate with regard to every other topic on which you post apart from Althouse herself"). I'm not offended by, but am somewhat bemused by, that claim, especially from a regular commenter at Althouse, because I feel as though my comments routinely and regularly dissent from Ann's positions, not just on minor subjects but on the most significant subjects.
Moreover, I wrote a post last year - ironically enough, dissenting from the last bhtv divalog - wherein (I feel) I attacked her position on the legal status of abortion in no uncertain terms. To be sure, I'd be less than honest if I didn't admit that I tried a dozen ways to write that post that were less caustic before giving in and facing the inevitable (viz., that it would be absolutely intellectually dishonest to pull punches, and she doesn't seem the type to be impressed by intellectual dishonesty). Nevertheless, I believed that she was not only completely wrong, but worse yet, she was stating a position that was, I felt, wildly inconsistent with principles she herself had previously enunciated, which I thought she was setting aside purely because they demanded a result that Ann was unwilling to accept politically. And I said so, in detail. So the inconvenient truth that dogs the idea that I have "blind loyalty" towards Ann is that I literally can't think of anyone who has provoked me to respond with a more comprehensive fisking of a position than has Ann Althouse.
All that being the case, I really don't know what to make of what I take to be the claim that I to kowtow Althouse. When I think she's wrong, I've said so. But this is not one of those times.
Those who hated Ann before see in her reaction evidence for everything they hate about her. Those who liked her before accept her intepretation of whats-her-name's comment as having been an insult. It's great that Simon is carrying on the fight for even-handedness, but I don't think the blogosphere is into that anymore.
It's possible that what's-her-name believed she was just using a kind of shorthand by calling it the "breast incident"; but the shorthands we choose say a lot! PR and advertising are multi-billion- dollar industries focused in part on making shorthands of this type stick in our brains.
Think how irate pro-choicers used to be about the anti-abortion movement successfully getting everyone to call them "pro-life," as if the other side was "anti-life." Do the same people jumping down Ann's throat accept the "cut and run" as an acceptable shorthand for their position on Iraq? No, they object furiously, and if someone told them they used "cut and run" as just a shorthand, it wouldn't fly for a second. Health care reform is shorthanded as "HillaryCare," thus dooming it. When a columnist called global warming skeptics "deniers," the skeptics became outraged, understandably.
Ann invested a lot of time, too much probably, in trying to explain her position on what the photo with Clinton said about the current state of feminism. It wasn't about Jessica's breasts. So to boil it down the way what's-her-name did disembowels Ann's argument and hands an unearned victory to her adversaries.
Althouse raises her voice for a few seconds after over a year of being called the nastiest names, and enduring constant misrepresentations, character assassinations, and unfairness. This means she has "lost it," is "wild-eyed," "out of control," and is having a "meltdown."
Althouse does a light-hearted lil vlog where she's sipping a glass of wine while watching American Idol's results show, and this makes her an "alcoholic."
Althouse gets links from InstaPundit because he happens to enjoy her blog, and this makes her a disingenuous part of a "right wing noise machine" conspiring to confuse the American voter.
The people who get so easily wound up by her believe they are well-adjusted, level-headed people who are outraged that bloggers exist who don't conform 100% with the DailyKos hyper-partisan Townhouse.
Those are the only "sane" bloggers - you know, people like Glenn Greenwald, who used to spend his evenings using sock puppets across the Internet comments sections in order to praise himself.
Whatever!
Doyle said...
Jeremy Bonderman wins AL Cy Young, after Santana’s elbow finally gives out.
Even if Santana goes down, he still won't be the best ace in his division unless CC Sabathia goes down too.
"I DO hope it was a good eastern WA cab."
The house wine chez Althouse is J. Lohr Cabernet. Californian, I'm afraid.
Arianne: Welcome! Thanks for appreciating the eccentricities here... for being so contra-Drezner.
Richard: "If Dr. Althouse is STILL claiming that she was calling her on tricks, I don't think so, the video doesn't read that way to me."
All I ever said was what I perceived at the time, explaining my reaction. I'm not claiming to know what Garance really meant. But the form of expression, throwing "breast" at me, offended me a lot.
And let's face it: I was drinking a huge, very strong cappucino. That was putting me on edge.
And note the precise thing that make me mad. I say I will stand my ground, then I say I don't appreciate the "breast controversy" locution, and she interrupts me. It's that sequence that pushes me over the line. I'm not saying it's right or I'm glad I did it. Just explaining myself.
Freder Frederson: "That a middle aged woman of theoretically such high intelligence would derive such pure joy and naturally high spirits from watching American Idol that she would act like an addle-brained high school freshman is probably sadder than the same woman getting drunk and acting like an addle-brained high school freshman. Being surprised that you are ridiculed for acting like you are in eighth grade shows a complete lack of self awareness."
And you don't see what a godawful prude you sound like there?
People like to relax and watch trashy TV. And you want us to feel ashamed. Prissy, puritanical, prudish.
And what's wrong with drunk blogging anyway . . .
'Anyway, for the most part, I don't answer back. As my mother used to say: You'll only encourage them.'
I guess this posting isn't answering back then? I'm a long time lurker and a once in while poster though it's been a while, but it appears that something is up with you where you're acting out some kind of problem in public.
About four months ago you started posting about your grievances with other bloggers every 2-3 weeks, then the time frame became shorter and shorter between each perceived slight, to now where you can't seem to go two or three days before you either do something that creates comment, write more posts about how misunderstood you are, bitch about that some more....and start the pattern all over again in a couple of days. You stand in the middle of the road shouting look at me, look at me, so someone drives by, looks at you, honks their horn, and what do you do? You shriek, 'they're looking at me, those prissy and puritanical bad drivers of the left'.
You've dug the hole, you've struck water, you can stop digging. Pace yourself, at the rate you're going you'll burn out and you'll be taking a break from your blog 'to spend more time with your family'....and that would be a damn shame.
Thou dost imbibe, and shamelessly!
Thine eyes befoul, with base TV!
Alas, such impropriety!
Can'st thou not age more gracefully?
Renounce youthful frivolity,
And hasten to a nunnery!
On judgements of morality
The right hath no monopoly.
I agree with Simon's remarks at Drezner's blog, but he misses to address the reason I felt put off by Ann's behavior. Ann's outrage could certainly have manifested itself in a less ugly way, but it was all too human.
The problem I had with Ann was the insistence, after the fact, to speculate--nay, pontificate, that Garance did what she did in bad faith. This attitude exactly mirrors that of one of the commenters at bloggingheads.tv, who, in a distasteful attempt to substantiate the idea that Ann's anger was all just a show for grabbing attention, said the following:
"Ann did state in one of her "Audible Althouse" episodes that she tries to spark controversy to gain fame, traffic, and attention. She directly cited Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin as successful models of the technique she is herself consciously applying to get ahead. She's talked about this on her blog, too; she's rather forthright about it."
This kind of mind-reading, whether it comes from Ann or her detractors is ridiculous and ugly, and this is not a judgment I come to from a Victorian, puritannical perspective.
"Nannies Against Drunk Blogging?"
More like: Ninnies Against Drunk Blogging.
pietro said..."The problem I had with Ann was the insistence, after the fact, to speculate--nay, pontificate, that Garance did what she did in bad faith."
Wow, is that distorted! I always spoke in terms of explaining why I perceived things the way I did. I have conspicuously refrained from criticizing Garance.
"This attitude exactly mirrors that of one of the commenters at bloggingheads.tv, who, in a distasteful attempt to substantiate the idea that Ann's anger was all just a show for grabbing attention, said the following: 'Ann did state in one of her "Audible Althouse" episodes that she tries to spark controversy to gain fame, traffic, and attention. She directly cited Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin as successful models of the technique she is herself consciously applying to get ahead. She's talked about this on her blog, too; she's rather forthright about it.'"
And that too is a distortion. What I have said is that after I get attacked, I come to terms with it by thinking about how things like that do increase your profile, which is something I do like. I think Coulter stages things and throws stink bombs to get attention. I am not doing that. I wish I hadn't got mad. But I am not trying to avoid getting a reaction. I intend to do my thing, and I know what it is. I am creating a web persona, and I have a performance art attitude that is often comic. Listen to more of the podcasts and you may understand what I'm doing.
Anyway, when if people go nuts attacking me, I remember how attacks works for Coulter and it helps me maintain my energy and commitment to the project.
And my project is different from the project of anyone who is promoting a particular political side -- which is a big part of why I drive people nuts. (They think I'm crazy because I drive them crazy.
And you don't see what a godawful prude you sound like there?
I think you are confusing prudishness with sheer amazement that you are so fascinated with, amused by, and care so much about American Idol (even though you claim you don't like the show) that it turns you into a giggling school girl without any chemical assistance at all.
Besides prudishness connotes disapproval. I thought the vlog was a laugh riot. I just assumed you were drunk. When you denied you were, well then my amusement became concern. It is one thing to laugh at someone who does something embarrassing while drunk and that person later says "I can't believe I did that, I was so wasted," and quite another when she claims "what, I wasn't drunk at all". The second implies a problem drinker. But since you continue to deny you were drunk and I wasn't there to see how much you were actually drinking, I guess I have to take you at your word. You really are that excited about Ryan Seacrest's hairstyle and what Paula Abdul is wearing even when stone cold sober.
I would be much less baffled by your behavior if the vlog showed you doing bong hits and washing down handfuls of ecstasy with a bottle of vodka. My disapproval stems from the fact that you claim you were not drunk, not shock that you might of been.
Maybe it is just the elitist in me, but I expect very intelligent people not to be so excited by average and below average singers singing pedestrian, predictable covers of mediocre pop songs aimed at a demographic you exited when this country was actually producing good popular music.
Prissy, puritanical, prudish.
Puritanical and prudish both refer to moral standards. How is being amazed by your love of American Idol a moral issue? As a law professor you should be more careful with language.
Prissy might be more accurate as that connotes an overriding concern about social convention and "keeping up appearances". I still think that is a mischaracterization of the point I am saying.
Freder: Your attempt to reframe it as "amazement" is lame. You clearly are censorious about people having a drink and watching trashy tv. That you can't understand it just makes the point. You're not funloving and you don't get people just having a little fun.
You're not funloving and you don't get people just having a little fun.
Whatever. Even if I am Eyeore, that doesn't make me prissy, puritanical or a prude, just a wet blanket. Again as a law professor, you should use language more carefully.
Ann, I just want to clarify something. I did not endorse the comments that I quoted in my previous post. I was actually criticizing the individual--call him X--I was quoting for using (and perhaps distorting) your assertions to conclude that you got angry just to get attention.
The parallel I saw was this: X presumes he has some knowledge of your ulterior motive for getting angry by referring back to something you said at a different time. You have recently accused Garance of having employed a journalistic technique with the purpose of getting you angry, and you substantiate that claim with a similar device as that which X uses. I just don't think it is appropriate to divine each other's intentions, and to argue that one's interlocutors are acting in bad faith.
Best regards,
Pietro,
I think it overstates the case to say that even with the benefit of hindsight, Ann absolutely and without any question pegged Garance's intent. There are other reasonable ways that it can be interpreted, and lean towards thinking - particularly in like of Garance's subsequent admission that her "use of the phrase 'Jessica Valenti breast controversy' ... was neither intended to provoke nor chosen out of a a soup of total ignorance" - that Mortimer Brezny hit the nail on the head - it was a catty remark "intended to sit there on the record, unnoticed by Ann, but picked up on the particular frequency that Tapped readers hear." However, all that said, I do think that even with a week to sift, winnow and ponder, it's no more reasonable to say that Garance certainly wasn't trying to provoke than it is to say that she certainly was.
Re ¶¶ 3-4 of Ann's 9:04 AM - you're right, but the distortion you're criticizing isn't Pietro's distortion, it's that of the bhtv commenter he was quoting, and Pietro explicitly called that distortion "distasteful."
Freder Frederson said...
"[A]s a law professor, you should use language more carefully."
As a jackass, you should use silence more often.
As a jackass, you should use silence more often.
As a pretentious amateur self-proclaimed legal expert who is actually a no-nothing twit, perhaps you should try it too.
I've never "proclaimed" myself a "legal expert" Freder...Haven't we been here before with your completely unsubstantiable accusations? This very month, in fact?
And I think you mean "know-nothing," not "no nothing" (does the latter actually mean anything, or is it just a popular malapropism for the former?), in which case, it's an unintentionally hilarious thing to say to an immigrant.
I've never "proclaimed" myself a "legal expert"
Good to know that you don't claim to be a legal expert. It's nice to know you acknowledge your knowledge of the law is extremely superficial and trivial.
And of course I do need to watch my spelling.
I've never "proclaimed" myself a "legal expert" Freder
Simon, if I claimed to have been born in Bethlehem of a virgin; able to turn water into wine; walk on water; feed five thousand with a couple loaves and a fish; cure lepers and raise the dead; it would be rather disingenuous of me to pretend I hadn't proclaimed myself Jesus.
Alan - I didn't know that but (without meaning to imply that I expect Freder's arguments to be coherent, as demonstrated above), but that definition of "no nothing" makes no more sense in that context than would "know nothing."
Simon: you'll notice that I have not speculated that Garance certainly did not intend to provoke. I just do not find it in good taste to insist that one knows for a fact that she did intend to provoke.
Pietro - I wouldn't frame it in terms of good or bad taste, but I can basically agree with what I think you're saying.
Ann -
The issue isn't whether you drink it is what you drink. They are probably deeply into Boone's farm with Ripple chasers.
That you show some classy taste by drinking from the glass and not from the bottle with a straw may be threatening.
I think we need to get Freder drunk.
While I occasionally disagree with Simon, I would not want to get in a war of words with him. I am too smart for that, I would respectfully disagree with him.
Some people do not know when they are outgunned.
Trey
Trey - I get that I'm outgunned. Really, I do; after this week, I get that the number of people who see that diavlog the way I do is apparently quite limited,although I don't really understand why - the view of it I've advanced seems ineluctable, to me, and nevertheless, my view of it will, I am confident, in time prevail. And even if it doesn't, it's the right thing to do.
I really haven't been following any of this, but I'd have a glass of wine with Ann any day, on or off camera. Or a bottle, for that matter.
- amba
Simon and Trey - before you two get into a kissy-fit of self and probably illicit love (you're the best...NOOO you're the best....NO you are....No No..you are...oh gosh we are both the best), there is nothing ineluctable about Simon's position on anything.
Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. If this were an identifiably slanted blog (I would place it:
Blogmaster Ann - slightly to the right of center but hard to pin down, some hail marys to social awareness issues, and a smattering of everything else to keep the search engines jumping
Commenters - a few liberals next to a lot of moderate types who easily outbalance the rabid right, a lot of people who write cleverly and well (no, not you Simon - don't even think it) and a lot who do not.
I opined earlier that this blog is more of a kiosk in a midieval town square where Ann is the only flyer-poster and also as Mayor of the village, she feels a duty to appeal to all segments of her domain.
To left and Right OTHER VILLAGES with more singleminded mayors, her brand of inclusion is a threat and she will be attacked (if that is a proper assessment) accordingly. But then if you don't want to be attacked, don't be mayor.
Amba: I'll take you up on that! I'll be living in Brooklyn Heights in the fall semester (and spring semester), and I'll be looking for drinking partners.
Ann - is that the decision alluded to the other month?
Enjoy the wine, Ann. I do, too.
Whoop de doo.
Hey Simon, I meant you were the big dog, certainly not the chihuahuas nipping at your heels. You post thoughtful, reasoned messages most of the time. They are weighty. I would not get in a idea war with you because I would lose. Your thoughts and posts are more methodical than mine.
Many of your detractors simply snipe or attack your training or self-image. Your ideas are rarely challenged. Well, rarely challenged in a methodical and thoughtful manner.
Sorry I was confusing, I get that way sometimes!
Trey - who is indeed a Simon fan
(And why does the left so often use accusations of homosexuality as a means of attack? I thought they were the ones who supported and accepted homosexuality?!?! How can you use homosexuality as a slur or attack if you accept it? You cannot. So what gives?)
Unfortunately, I'm now in Chapel Hill . . . where I occasionally drink with Michael Reynolds.
Annie, I have never considered myself unfortunate when I am in Chapel Hill!
Trey
Ah, I see the confusion, Ann. You think we think you're a drunk because we looked at the 'two sips of wine'.
In actuality, we were looking at the slurred speech, the disconnected thoughts, the logical inconsistencies and the impaired judgement displayed in what you were saying and acting.
You see now? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Trey,
My bad. I appreciate the compliments, particularly since I seem to have the short end of this stick. :)
Doodle, thanks for demonstrating the thought patterns of the prissy puritan. You think things like free association and humor are only achievable through vices you can tsk over. Enjoy your grim little world, but don't spoil mine.
Pardon me for popping in like this, but I just have to ask...
Doodle Bean,
If it's the slurred speech, the disconnected thoughts, the logical inconsistencies and the impaired judgement then you must believe the chasm which might separate Ms. Althouse from, say, Rosie O'Donnell is a mere hair's breadth in width.
That raises a question: Would you then say that the difference between a drunk and a liberal is the slurred speech?
P.S. -- Ms Althouse, I've been reading your blog for a few weeks now. I'm a fan. I also grew up in the Austin area and love the photos.
I merely wanted to thank you yet again for the amazing website you have made here. It is full of useful tips for those who are truly interested in that subject, primarily this very post. Your all absolutely sweet plus thoughtful of others in addition to the fact that reading the blog posts is a wonderful delight if you ask me. And what a generous gift! Jeff and I are going to have excitement making use of your ideas in what we should do in a few days. Our checklist is a mile long which means your tips might be put to very good use.
Computer
Post a Comment