Anyway, there's been some talk about onions around here lately. A quirky post about a Clinton campaign video touched off a giant blog swarm and what I think was my highest traffic day ever. Based on an earlier blog swarm last September, I now know that what sets the left blogosphere into intense, concerted action is calling attention to Bill Clinton's old sexual problems. I wonder why.
The most pathetic member of the swarm was Christopher Orr, who blogs at The Plank, which is part of the New Republic's website. He seems to have gotten his ideas not from trying to read my post but from consuming the tripe of lefty bloggers who went into a tizzy trying to protect Mrs. Clinton:
Althouse's reading of the scene inspired a fair number of incredulous posts from other bloggers ..."Other bloggers"? Don't you have the responsibility to say that the "incredulity" was entirely from left-o-sphere bloggers? This wasn't neutral. And it was phony incredulity. Really, are you that gullible or are you part of the effort to protect Mrs. Clinton?
He goes on to make some embarrassing blunders, but I don't want to bog down this post explaining them. I've written three comments over there -- demanding two apologies. And then Andrew Sullivan dips his toe in the controversy by linking to Orr's post. Brilliant.
Do you think I'm dissuaded from writing any more about the Clenis?
ADDED: "Ann Althouse is getting heat for her sexual interpretation of Bill & Hillary's Sopranos scene." That's the style of link I like, from WaPo's Howard Kurtz.
AND: I just want to emphasize that I stand by my original sexual interpretation. You've got a married couple talking about two foods, one of which is obviously a hole, and the other of which is so clearly phallic that this Google search gets over 70,000 hits.
The man wants the hole-shaped item, and the woman forbids it. She insists that he confine himself to the phallic item, which has been sliced down to puny, thin stick form. The man looks at it sadly, and the woman tells him it's for his own good. If you don't see sexual imagery there, you exist on a very narrow band of human imagination. I don't see how you are competent to watch film. Christopher Orr appears to be a film critic, too!
When Clinton sadly bites into the carrot stick of his own castration, it makes a crunch noise -- ouch! -- and it's that noise that causes the ominous looking man at the bar ("Johnny Sack") to turn and look at him. He then walks by and gives him a glare. What does that glare mean in the Clinton video? I think it means: "What kind of man are you?"
UPDATE: Christopher Orr tries to respond to my criticism of his attack on me. I respond in his comments this way:
1. You miss the whole point of the part about suing, which was an allusion to another controversy we'd been discussing on my blog, and not anything about me thinking I could sue. You write "after complaining that the blogger wrote 'sexual things' about her, she theorized that he had a small penis and would therefore prefer phallic calamari to vagina-like onion rings." You omit that the blogger calls himself "Instaputz." I wrote: "By the way a 'putz' is a little penis, so he might want to order the fried calamari instead of the onion rings." So you deceptively laundered out the whole quality of the joke and made me look as if I were just sour and vindictive. Incredible!
2. I write what I think, including what I think about the sexual connotations of a wife denying her husband circular food items and confining him to a bowl of pared-down cylindars. I am aware that my writing is popular, and I realize that things like that bring readers, which I enjoy, but I admitted that that one line was a taunt intended to poke other bloggers to respond. So what? Blogging is something of a game sometimes. I have fun with it, you know? And in that aspect of blogging, the Site Meter keeps score, and it's part of the fun to watch the score. I never say that I think the traffic was only a result of that line, so, again, you miss the point.
3. I defend myself from attacks. Not always, but to the extent that I choose. There were some high-traffic bloggers saying vicious things about me. I hit back, totally justified, and in a mostly humorous way -- as with the calamari wisecrack.
Finally, you say "I fear the best I can do is to say that I'm rather sorry to have engaged her at all." Ha! You'd prefer to slam people and have them silently take it, right? Bloggers don't do that. The comfy old days of MSM are gone. Thanks for admitting that you can't handle the new situation where the people you attack have a way of fighting back.
Posts
110 comments:
I love the smell of onions in the morning. Keep that frying pan going, Ann!
If nothing else these left-wing loons are predictable. They oppose freedom of speech when it goes against their boilerplate beliefs, they use ad hominem attacks against those who have the temerity to disagree with anything they say, and they have an absolute aversion to inconvenient facts and truth.
Their reaction was totally predictable. When dealing with these anti-constitutionalists it is best to keep a sense of humor and a healthy dose of cynicism. They are their own worst enemy.
I think it is a combination of the pachouli and marijuana that distorts their perception of reality.
Is this a tempest in a jock-cup? It parallels nicely then with your tempest in a C-cup.
Peter Hoh: Smells like....fish?
Oh Ruth Anne, you made me think of a really bad joke.
Ann, your comment about the lack of a sense of humor was correct. Its no different than Muslims who riot about cartoons or evangelicals who see evil in a toddler's TV character. We need to lighten up and pointing out those who can't is worthwhile.
seems to have gotten his ideas not from trying to read my post but from consuming the tripe of lefty bloggers who went into a tizzy trying to protect Mrs. Clinton
See, this is why we love you, Ann.
You're so monuentally self-absorbed that it never even occurs to you that when you're being made fun of as a blithering idiot it has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting Hillary.
Wow.
I now know that what sets the left blogosphere into intense, concerted action is calling attention to Bill Clinton's old sexual problems.
No. It's watching a batshit insane drunk biting the head off a bat - and acting proud about it.
I thought the bit made Hill look more feminine, even somewhat sexy. Bill looked relaxed and self deprecating. Onion? Well that's how I got here. Fred Thompson? How 'bout Dan Marino. 17 months. Holy Sh*t.
Ann,
There's something you don't get. (Or hide.) Nobody "flipped out," was "in a tizzy," or "defending Mrs. Clinton." Or at least very few.
People were laughing at you.
You're a clown, Ann. And when people come to your blog and gawk, it's because you're funny, like the dumb bad guys in Home Alone. People come here, not out of anger, but because they have to see with their own eyes the latest incarnaton of the continuously evolving Ann Althouse train wreck.
Trust me, Ann: No one is scared of you, angered by you, or feeling any need defend against the lunatic ravings that pour out of your mouth.
You have, by now, become such a cartoon that you literally threaten no one. You have neutralized yourself.
With your background and position in life, you could have had respect and influence. But something in wrong in your head, and you squandered that to become the laughingstock of the Internet.
Do you think I'm dissuaded from writing any more about the Clenis?
Absolutely not. It's your obsession.
The fact that you won't admit that - and you don't see everyone standing right in front of you laughing their heads off, and, in fact, want them to look even more - is why we're here.
You're the Geek, lady. Anyone else, I'd feel sad for. You're such a fucking joke, though, that you're getting exactly what you deserve.
I bet the University of Bumfuck is very proud.
"People were laughing at you.
You're a clown, Ann."
"The fact that you won't admit that - and you don't see everyone standing right in front of you laughing their heads off, and, in fact, want them to look even more - is why we're here.
You're the Geek, lady. Anyone else, I'd feel sad for. You're such a fucking joke"
In other words:
GET IT, ALTHOUSE? THE COOL KIDS THINK YOU LIKE TOTALLY SUCK. YOU'RE LIKE NOT INVITED TO SIT AT OUR TABLE AT LUNCH ANYMORE. GAWD.
Man, verso and dave are sure workin' their little sausages raw over this one. You boys are going to pop a blood vessel if you're not careful!
To piggyback off of Dave's point, who is this strawman who has been walking around angry and upset at Ann's post. Liberals aren't in a tizzy over you Ann, we are just laughing and maybe a little perplexed about what a silly stance that you are taking.
It seems that its either A) You really believe what you wrote and you need to lay off of the Freud 101 and peyote combo or B) You are just doing this for attention which is even stranger, that an educated and successful person such as yourself is willing to make a fool out of herself to make everyone look at her or win the Conservative Blogress award or something.
Thanks for the entertainment Ann. Verso and others are hillarious. I look forward to more of them swarming here to insist they don't care about you.
/is it a swarm of Moonbats or a herd or gaggle?
Trust me, Ann: No one is scared of you, angered by you, or feeling any need defend against the lunatic ravings that pour out of your mouth.
That comment was ironic.
you literally threaten no one
Literally?
This has been a particularly strong and enjoyable vortex.
Palladian;
I agree! Nothing more pathetic than stupid and mediocre railing against smart and successful.
Envy is the price they pay for their mediocrity and uncanny ability to blame everyone else for their own shortcomings.
They continually reinforce their ability to ignore personal responsibility. What I find sad and interesting at the same time is their belief that by attempting to lower us to their level of hubris they are automatically elevating themselves.
Fen: My source calls a group of bats either a colony or a cloud. I think "cloud of moonbats" would work best.
Nothing more pathetic than stupid and mediocre railing against smart and successful.
Huh. So "carrot = penis, onion ring = vagina" qualifies as "smart and successful"?
I mean, you sit a bunch of sixth-grade boys down at a table with a bunch of carrots and onion rings, and eventually one of them's going to start poking a carrot through an onion ring and start making a grunting noise.
So if "smart and successful" means "as smart and/or mature as a prepubescent boy," then yeah, I guess Althouse has cleared that lofty bar.
Kudos. Or something.
Doug: Huh. So "carrot = penis, onion ring = vagina" qualifies as "smart and successful"?
Heh. They still aren't getting it. Hysterical.
Ann, will you add "The Infamous Ann Althouse" to your site? You could just quote the source as "The New Republic!"
What's incomprehensible to me is how utterly fucking humorless the little crowd of nuanced hipsters appears to be. Didn't it occur to any of them that the post analyzing the Holy Clinton's riff on the Sopranos was itself a riff on the way people analyze the Sopranos? Have they read any of the over-the-top symbolic analysis of the last episode of the show?
What's amusing is how utterly off-the-charts the reaction to this has been. It's like two solid days of people absolutely freaking out. Most of the comments are on the theme of "you're a laughingstock, you're a clown" which is funny in itself since the post that spawned the comments was supposed to be funny. The telling part of the overreaction is how utterly desperate everyone is to try to neutralize Althouse's credibility. It's like the Clinton fire brigade frantically pouring water on a gasoline fire, trying to put it out. Well, it's not going to work- you're only going to get burnt. If you really didn't care and you really thought Althouse was a clown that nobody took seriously, you wouldn't come here and comment at all.
But what do I know? I'm not a cool kid. I sit at the table with the geeks. The cool kids are busy making Bill and Hilary feel better about themselves.
*flips through the jukebox, drops in a quarter*
"Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar, you're gonna go far, you're gonna fly high, you're never gonna die, you're gonna make it if you try, they're gonna love you... Have you seen the chart? It's a helluva start,it could be made into a monster if we all pull together as a team.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it Riding the Gravy Train."
Keep those buckets coming...
Okay, now I am really confused.
First, Ann makes a really stupid and inane analysis of the Clinton video, saying that onion rings are vaginas and carrots are penises (which on its face doesn't even make sense, because that would mean Hillary wants Bill to start sleeping with men). It's not like Bill ordered tacos or bearded clams. She gets ridiculed by mostly left wing blogs for her ridiculous pseudo-freudian analysis. (Of course right wingers have their own hangups with the female anatomy, witness the Ace of Spades play dough and bacon metaphor of a few weeks ago). So then she comes back and says "can't you take a joke (but I did mean it)".
Now she claims that the outrage (and btw ridicule is not the same as outrage) is because she was mean to Hillary. But of course she really loves Hillary. Heck, she might even vote for her.
And of course all of Ann's usual sycophants on this site don't get it either. They just don't see that this has nothing to do with Hillary. People are just laughing at Ann. Wondering how someone so stupid and shallow can be a tenured professor at a fairly prestigious law school.
"I now know that what sets the left blogosphere into intense, concerted action is calling attention to Bill Clinton's old sexual problems."
Now if you were indeed blogging about any sexual problems Bill has, that would be in extremely poor taste. I believe that to which you refer would be more properly term Bill Clinton's fidelity problems, or self-control problems, or sleeping-with-the-help problems.
Oddly enough, the Althouse vortex makes a sound.
If you're in a quiet room, . . , and you put your ear to your computer screen, . . ., and you listen very carefully, . . ., then you might be able to hear it.
It's the sound of a cloud of moonbats obsessing over Althouse.
It sounds like: "Fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, . . ."
Ann Althouse wrote:
I wrote what I felt like saying about the video without caring whether people wanted to read it or not, but when I realized it was hot-button, I threw in the line "I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion that" as a joke, because I was picturing all kinds of outraged disagreement.
Did you really not care whether or not people read your blog entry?
What's amusing is how utterly off-the-charts the reaction to this has been. It's like two solid days of people absolutely freaking out. Most of the comments are on the theme of "you're a laughingstock, you're a clown" which is funny in itself since the post that spawned the comments was supposed to be funny.
Yeah right! Give me a freakin' break. She was serious. She continued in the comments to support her "analysis". Even the next day as she started to pretend it was a joke she still stuck with her analysis.
One thing about Ann. Once she makes a statement or takes a position, she never backs down.
"I mean, you sit a bunch of sixth-grade boys down at a table with a bunch of carrots and onion rings, and eventually one of them's going to start poking a carrot through an onion ring and start making a grunting noise."
Yeah, and you guys would be saying you see nothing sexual there! LOL.
Carrots and onion rings! Carrots and onion rings!
Keep thinking about and keep telling me there is no sexual imagery to that. It's FILM. Film uses images that have meaning. It's beat-you-over-the-head meaningful, so how the hell did it get into Clinton's video? She's forbidding her husband to have the hole-shaped item and requiring to limit himself to a pared down prick. Hello?
Deny, deny, deny. You're going on and on because you know I'm right.
It's true, I don't "literally" threaten anyone, but the pen is mighter than the sword.
And sometimes a pen is just a pen and sometimes a sword is just a sword.
You kids are well-tamed by your political masters. Well-tamed and boring as hell.
"And of course all of Ann's usual sycophants on this site don't get it either."
Well, we're in good company with Ann's usual crazy stalkers. Really, you should stick to defending detainees, Freder. Oh, I forgot, you suck at that too.
Freder Frederson said "First, Ann makes a really stupid and inane analysis of the Clinton video, saying that onion rings are vaginas and carrots are penises (which on its face doesn't even make sense, because that would mean Hillary wants Bill to start sleeping with men)."
Makes sense to me. She's handing him his cut off body part! It's a shocking castration image. Castrating woman? Is that an idea you've ever heard of in connection with Hillary?
Didn't it occur to any of them that the post analyzing the Holy Clinton's riff on the Sopranos was itself a riff on the way people analyze the Sopranos?
This line of argument would be a little more credible if Ann wasn't one of those people who overanalyzed the final episode of the Sopranos. Onion Rings as communion wafers. Why not onion rings as vaginas then? Come on.
Ruth Anne, I went to that site same time as you, and couldn't resist some of the terms for animals who cleave and clump together, some of whom exhibit unhumorous, feral, pack behavior (unless they're dumb-down domesticated as Ann says):
Descent of woodpeckers, boogle or confusion of weasels, knob of waterfowl, gang of turkeys, knot of toads, mutation of thrushes, swarm of termites, filth of starlings, slither of snakes, mob of sheep, stench of schnauzers, crash of rhinos,
unkindness of ravens, prickle of porcupines, passel of hogs, ostentation of peacocks, pandemonium of parrots, barren of mules, murder of magpies, plague of locusts, souse of lions, deceit of lapwings, mob of kangaroos, smuck of jellyfish, scold of jays,
cackle of hyenas, nest of hornets, bloat of hippopotami, troubling of goldfish, implausibility of gnus, kindergarten of giraffes, horde of gerbils, a skulk of foxes, business of flies, array of eels, pitying of turtle doves, cowardice of curs, striker of crocodiles, pack of coyotes, flink of cows, gulp of cormorants, covert of coots,
intrusion of cockroaches, quiver of cobras, chattering of choughs, peep of chicken, wake of buzzards, obstinacy of buffalo, sedge of bitterns, dissimulation of birds, grist of bees, family of beavers, sloth of bears, battery of barracudas, culture of bacteria, troop of baboons,
and my number one favorite: pace of asses.
Makes sense to me. She's handing him his cut off body part! It's a shocking castration image. Castrating woman? Is that an idea you've ever heard of in connection with Hillary?
You know you're undermining Palladian's point (and your own) that this is all an elaborate joke to draw the humorless lefties into your vortex.
"Did you really not care whether or not people read your blog entry?"
My approach to blogging from day one has been to write what I want to write. It's gratifying when people read it, so it has worked as a way of getting readers, and I'm sticking with it. I think people like reading me because I follow this method and it's different from what other people do. Which I think is part of why hardcore political writers are confounded by my writing. That amuses me greatly, and it does stimulate me to write. I'm glad I can make a place in the political debate for people who aren't too political, and I play off the misunderstandings of people who are confined to a narrow political band. Sex and politics and the analysis of photos and videos... what a wonderful subject. I love it.
As a painter (not of walls, the other kind) I must hand it to Ann for her brilliant Onion Ring Series. While I can't quite decide how much the final product has been a conscious creation of hers, as opposed to an intuitive production, how it is she can get essential posts like 9:03AM and 9:04AM to appear in such a timely and repetive manner, and over days and days at that, is truly stunning. Indeed, unbelievable. Ann, admit it, you are Verso and Dave. Or at the very least they were dining with you last night celebrating a collaborative effort well done. That they have been merely fortuitous I find truly hard to fathom. Anyway, very enjoyable.
Freder Frederson said "First, Ann makes a really stupid and inane analysis of the Clinton video, saying that onion rings are vaginas and carrots are penises (which on its face doesn't even make sense, because that would mean Hillary wants Bill to start sleeping with men)."
Makes sense to me. She's handing him his cut off body part! It's a shocking castration image. Castrating woman? Is that an idea you've ever heard of in connection with Hillary?
Remember, there's that phrase "he had his ass handed to him."
You know you're undermining Palladian's point (and your own) that this is all an elaborate joke to draw the humorless lefties into your vortex.
You have to admit Freder that by arguing for 2 pretty mutually exclusive outcomes (1. It was a joke and 2. Ann is right) that her sycophants have truly created a vortex of irrationality that your reason will never be able to break through. They sound as confused as we are about her post, but their obedience won't allow them to admit it.
I believe that to which you refer would be more properly term Bill Clinton's fidelity problems, or self-control problems, or sleeping-with-the-help problems.
/unspin
Bill Clinton sex for jobs scandals. Sexual harassment and discrimination of women who won't blow him [Jones], interviews at UN and Revlon for those who do [Lewinksy], to say nothing of all the other hard-working women who were passed over for promotion/interviews because they didn't snap their thong. Along with sexually assaulting women interviewing for a job [Wiley].
It wasn't "Just About Sex". That one was [Flowers].
freder wrote among other things:
First, Ann makes a really stupid and inane analysis of the Clinton video, saying that onion rings are vaginas and carrots are penises ........So then she comes back and says "can't you take a joke (but I did mean it)".
I am pretty confused too....was her 'Freudian' interpretation tongue and cheek or was it not? Especially since she goes on to reinforce "AND: I just want to emphasize that I stand by my original sexual interpretation. "
This sounds like she believes her interpretation approximates the underlying psychodynamics of the Clinton marriage as they unconsciously played it out in the ad.
At any rate, I want to apologize to Ann for all of those family members, friends, colleagues, paramours, competitors, and strangers who have misunderstood her or injured her in any way beginning in early childhood, intentionally or unintentionally (due to intellectual deficiency, not caring, laziness, selfishness, etc).
Deny, deny, deny. You're going on and on because you know I'm right.
Hold on, didn't you say just yesterday that you never expected all bloggers to agree with you and that was the clue that you didn't expect your analysis to be taken seriously? Now you are saying that your analysis is right and people are only disagreeing with you because they know you are right and loathe to admit it.
I guess I am well tamed by my political masters and boring as hell. But I am also so confused.
Ann Althouse said...
My approach to blogging from day one has been to write what I want to write.
But what makes you write what you want to write?
We've had rightwingers who were hearing satanic references on records when played backwards.
We've had rightwingers who were seeing Jesus' face on toasted bread and sold them on eBay.
We've had rightwingers who were seeing an islamic crescent in the Flight 93 memorial.
Now we have rightwingers who are detecting subliminal sexual references in food.
And rightwingers wonder why everybody thinks they are bonkers.
What's next? Pacifiers and stacker-toys are actually sextoys?
"They sound as confused as we are about her post, but their obedience won't allow them to admit it."
Man, for such nuanced thinkers you people certainly seem to love things done up in pure black and white, don't you? In analysis, it's not either/or, it's both, though I do understand that it's hard for the small-minded to live in ambiguity.
And remember- you can't have analysis without having anal.
Rightwingers, Rightwingers, Rightwingers!
Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!
Where are all these Rightwingers anyway? I don't know that I've ever actually met one, at least not in the wild.
"What's next? Pacifiers and stacker-toys are actually sextoys?"
And what do you think pacifiers are surrogates for?
Jesus, y'all nuanced intellectshulz is dumb!
Listen carefully: it's the sound of the University of Wisconsin Law School's "faculty reputation" dropping a bit lower.
I wonder if it will go back up next year when A-House is away.
jane said...
smuck of jellyfish
This is my favorite. How about a "schmuck of moonbats"?
Palladian at 9:56
What's incomprehensible to me is how utterly fucking humorless the little crowd of nuanced hipsters appears to be. Didn't it occur to any of them that the post analyzing the Holy Clinton's riff on the Sopranos was itself a riff on the way people analyze the Sopranos? Have they read any of the over-the-top symbolic analysis of the last episode of the show?
Ann at 10:04
Keep thinking about and keep telling me there is no sexual imagery to that. It's FILM. Film uses images that have meaning. It's beat-you-over-the-head meaningful, so how the hell did it get into Clinton's video? She's forbidding her husband to have the hole-shaped item and requiring to limit himself to a pared down prick. Hello?
Deny, deny, deny. You're going on and on because you know I'm right.
Palladian at 10:26
In analysis, it's not either/or, it's both, though I do understand that it's hard for the small-minded to live in ambiguity.
You know Palladian, generally when you're in a hole, the first, best course of action is to stop digging.
Palladian, I think they call it a "limbaugh of Rightwingers," or sometimes a "hate talk radio of rightwingers".
President Hillary's gonna work on that No. 1 security issue for us.
"You know Palladian, generally when you're in a hole, the first, best course of action is to stop digging."
That may be how they do it where you're from, but generally when I'm in the hole, my first, best course of action is to keep "digging", faster and deeper.
No wonder you seem so... unsatisfied.
Palladian said...
Man, for such nuanced thinkers you people certainly seem to love things done up in pure black and white, don't you? In analysis, it's not either/or, it's both, though I do understand that it's hard for the small-minded to live in ambiguity.
It is kinda confusing for me. I am not a psychoanalyst, so it is difficult for me to evaluate whether Ann's interpretive pearls would pass as serious analytic interpretation or a caricature of psychoanalytic interpretation. Right now, I am just trying to figure out whether or not Ann wants us to take her observations as a serious effort at understanding the Clinton marriage or as some sort of skit.
I am still trying more fully grasp the meaning of her comment: "I'm glad I can make a place in the political debate for people who aren't too political, and I play off the misunderstandings of people who are confined to a narrow political band."
Mindsteps and some of the others here are not very light on their feet. Trip more fantastically, guys!
Justin, years ago I stopped using "putz" when I realized what it meant. Of course, that was before my awareness of moonbats and how they relieve themselves all over others' discussion and fun.
I am still trying more fully grasp the meaning of her comment: "I'm glad I can make a place in the political debate for people who aren't too political, and I play off the misunderstandings of people who are confined to a narrow political band."
Easy. For me, her blog is a welcome respite for those who have grown weary of the 24/7 political blogs. And she enjoys poking fun at partisans who take themselves too seriously.
jane said...
Mindsteps and some of the others here are not very light on their feet. Trip more fantastically, guys!
Jane:
What do you mean?
Althouse wrote: "It's true, I don't "literally" threaten anyone, but the pen is mighter than the sword."
The penis is mightier than this word?
In analysis, it's not either/or, it's both, though I do understand that it's hard for the small-minded to live in ambiguity.
You do realize you just called Ann small-minded.
Ann, I don't normally comment on your blog (although I read it whenever Classical Values links here, as they did concerning your interpretation of the onion ring thing. That got a chuckle out of me -- your interpretation, I mean, not the ad, which actually embarrassed me to watch it). I just wanted to say good work on putting the shiv to the eye of your utterly humorless critics. I don't know if it was your intention or not, but I think you've exposed the majority of the left-wing blogosphere for its joyless crusader mentality. Bravo!
Right now, I am just trying to figure out whether or not Ann wants us to take her observations as a serious effort at understanding the Clinton marriage or as some sort of skit.
What Ann does is say really silly things (that she and her toadies think are absolutely brilliant--like onions are vaginas) and if she is harshly criticized or ridiculed she backs off and says "that's not what I meant at all, it was a joke", or "I was misunderstood" or alternately "it was a piece of performance art meant to rile those less brilliant, creative, and enlightened than me."
But unfortunately for her she always runs into a problem. She just can't stick to her subsequent denials. Her narcissism, arrogance and belief in her own brilliant insights usually makes her reiterate her original point even after she has claimed that she was misunderstood or didn't mean to be taken seriously.
That of course leads to massive confusion, and much amusement, as both her and her and her sycophants both try to simultaneously deny that she meant what she originally said and defend it.
This instance is a picture perfect example. I can't wait for the v-blog in a few months when someone brings it up and she goes ballistic.
Fen said...
Easy. For me, her blog is a welcome respite for those who have grown weary of the 24/7 political blogs. And she enjoys poking fun at partisans who take themselves too seriously.
I am trying to put myself in the shoes of someone being poked. I wonder if you are consistently and predominantly 'poking fun' at partisans of one particular political persuasion then it seems more of a respite for those who are not the targeted political orientation.
For me, it also helps ease the sting, if you can poke fun at your own political views and those who share in your political beliefs.
I am speaking as one who has difficulty fully accepting the orthodoxy of any one belief system or political ideology.
I think what drives the left crazy about Ann's post is that they know it's funny, but they're not allowed to laugh. Not only does it involve the sacred Billary icon, but the psycho-sexual analysis is exactly the kind of thing their comrades in English/Film Studies Depts. actully take seriously. No one else does...nowadays psychoanalysis has joined astrology and alchemy, and you can get a degree in psychology without ever hearing of Freud.
Castrating woman? Is that an idea you've ever heard of in connection with Hillary?
And that's an image she would want in a campaign ad for what reason precisely?
Bill says "No onion rings?" and Hillary responds "I'm looking out for ya."
As fun as the Freudian stuff can be, isn't the real subtext of this that Hillary is going to be our national annoying, prescriptive, wife/mother?
She's going to make us do what she wants, "for our own good." Is this a recipe for electoral or popular success?
I think what drives the left crazy about Ann's post is that they know it's funny, but they're not allowed to laugh.
It's not funny. It's Freshman Psychology and Film student inanely stupid analysis. People made some bitingly funny (and mean) observations about her not even sophomoric analysis. If it was supposed to be funny, it didn't even come close.
And like I pointed out, by both denying and affirming the analysis, Ann has made it impossible for anyone to mount a principled defense of the post.
Teachers don't "like" to teach anymore. A classroom is hell.Students, parents and teachers don't like teachers. Lawyers don't like the law anymore. Being in a courtroom is sheer drudgery-hell. Lawyers, clients, and lawyers don't like lawyers.
Teaching law. Living hell. Wants to write. Writing for "hits". Hits.
No mas.
Smilin' Jack said...
I think what drives the left crazy about Ann's post is that they know it's funny, but they're not allowed to laugh.
S.W. said...
I just wanted to say good work on putting the shiv to the eye of your utterly humorless critics.
Art.....Humor.....both.......
The thing about humor is that you cannot force someone to find something funny. While some suggest that those who don't find Ms. Althouse funny have a character flaw.....I don't think that is necessarily an accurate generalization.
Look, maybe Ann is consistently funny, if, say, you possess a particular belief system. However, those who do not possess the ideology may not find her as funny. Some people liked Lenny Bruce or Mort Sahl....others did not. Some humorists appeal to a broader audience....say Bill Cosby, while others may resonate with a more specific crowd, ala Dick Gregory.
I mean, c'mon. What I'm saying is common sense...No?
I think what drives the left crazy about Ann's post is that they know it's funny, but they're not allowed to laugh.
But then Ann said this:
Carrots and onion rings! Carrots and onion rings!
Keep thinking about and keep telling me there is no sexual imagery to that. It's FILM. Film uses images that have meaning. It's beat-you-over-the-head meaningful, so how the hell did it get into Clinton's video? She's forbidding her husband to have the hole-shaped item and requiring to limit himself to a pared down prick. Hello?
Deny, deny, deny. You're going on and on because you know I'm right.
And now in her most recent post she's telling us she's an ARTIST DAMMIT (ignore the whole law professor thing, that gig is apparently just to pay the bills).
So, I guess I am just missing the joke. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Sometimes I just don't get highbrow humor. Can you explain why this is all so funny?
"by arguing for 2 pretty mutually exclusive outcomes (1. It was a joke and 2. Ann is right)"
Those are not two mutually exclusive outcomes. Something can be a joke and be pretty funny, while also being based in some truth.
In fact the funniest jokes always have an element of truth in them, otherwise they wouldn't be as humorous to us.
What does seem to be mutually exclusive is the attitude of you left wing trolls and a sense of humor.
And now in her most recent post she's telling us she's an ARTIST DAMMIT (ignore the whole law professor thing, that gig is apparently just to pay the bills).
And so....? I consider myself an artist too. I was an art major in college and still create for fun and expression. I'm a stockbroker not for fun, but to pay the bills. Although being a stockbroker can be a thrill a minute job [sarcasm]. How is this a difficult concept for you, that people can be more than one dimensional?
So, I guess I am just missing the joke. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Sometimes I just don't get highbrow humor. Can you explain why this is all so funny?
I don't know about anyone else, but I find this whole thing hilarious on many levels.
1. The elaborate psychoanalysis of a not very good political ad that replicates the pretentious psychobabble spouted by the left. http://www.willthomas.net/911/Bush/
2. The over the top, knee jerk reactions by people who are obviously going to oppose Ann in whatever she writes. ala trademark dave, who has some sort of fascination with boxes of wine. Hmmmmm maybe we should do a psychoanalysis on that?
3. The fact that you guys have zero sense of humor and take yourselves so seriously that you don't even recognize when you have become parodies of yourself.
To be frank: the problem isn't that Althouse forwarded a Freudian analysis, but that she forwarded an inane Freudian analysis, based upon the risible, popularized version of psychoanalytic thought; you know, the anything-longer-than-it-is-wide school. For me, the problem with this is that to many who never read blogs but see her and Reynolds' names appear in The New York Times, they think this is what is meant by academic blogging. (I air this complaint at great length elsewhere.) As a representative of academia -- to non-academics, yes, but also to non-blogging academics -- the superficiality of her analysis solidifies the impression of academic blogging as fundamentally unserious.
If knowledge gleaned from Woody Allen films from 1965 qualifies as "insightful," after all, non-academics won't see the point of academia and academics won't see the point of blogging. Not that academics can't and/or shouldn't be frivolous, mind you; only that when they are, they should at least show they possess intellect enough to not repeat tired truisms of a bygone era. Seriously, Woody Allen mocked himself for believing in them in the 1960s, when they were already passe, and Althouse finds them insightful now. Will her next series of posts concern the shape of Clinton's head? I mean, since she finds meaning in obsolete nonsense, what's stopping her from doing a full-scare phrenological work-up of the Clintons?
I mean, since she finds meaning in obsolete nonsense, what's stopping her from doing a full-scare phrenological work-up of the Clintons?
LOL Thanks for proving my point.
The elaborate psychoanalysis of a not very good political ad that replicates the pretentious psychobabble spouted by the left.
But therein lies the problem. Ann can hardly be parodying the "pretentious psychobabble spouted by the left" while at the same time insisting that her analysis is spot on and that the only reason we deny she is right is because we are jealous of her insight and brilliance.
How is this a difficult concept for you, that people can be more than one dimensional?
This is not a difficult concept for me. My point was that Ann would have us believe that she is just an artist and knows nothing about the law or politics. She is the one claiming a single dimension in her most recent post. I was merely pointing out that isn't going to fly.
Jeez, lefties, give it a rest. The only thing lamer than trying to explain why a joke is funny to people who aren't laughing is trying to explain why it isn't funny to people who are.
Thanks for proving my point.
Which would be...?
fen-fen said: "Thanks for the entertainment Ann. Verso and others are hillarious. I look forward to more of them swarming here to insist they don't care about you.
suck harder.
think of pogo.
invisible says: "You are just doing this for attention which is even stranger, that an educated and successful person such as yourself is willing to make a fool out of herself to make everyone look at her..."
on the nosey.
Fen-Fen said..."Heh. They still aren't getting it. Hysterical."
c'mon...suck even harder.
pogo won't care.
Palladian said..."What's incomprehensible to me is how utterly fucking humorless the little crowd of nuanced hipsters appears to be. Didn't it occur to any of them that the post analyzing the Holy Clinton's riff on the Sopranos was itself a riff on the way people analyze the Sopranos? Have they read any of the over-the-top symbolic analysis of the last episode of the show?"
just keep telling yourself that...
duh.
Geeze, Freder, you're going to break your jaw on the bait if you keep chomping that hard.
Boy this woman is really spiralling downwards out of control. And the funny thing is the more she lowers herself into the abyss the shriller and more incoherent she gets.
Freder Frederson said..."...Wondering how someone so stupid and shallow can be a tenured professor at a fairly prestigious law school."
it is rather hard to believe.
makes me wonder what her students think.
Freeman Hunt said..."Geeze, Freder, you're going to break your jaw on the bait if you keep chomping that hard."
yeah...ann's just "baiting" everyone.
you can't be that dense.
smilin' jack,
and the joke is??
oh, please.
the entire ann rift is nothing more than another dim-witted slam on the clinton's...especially hillary.
all of the psycho-babble and "wink, wink" bullshit is just that: bullshit.
Kudos to Scott Eric Kaufman for his elegant rephrasing of "You, A Law Professor...!"
So, Anne, are you going to marry a carrot?
scott,
i hate seeing woody's name in the same sentence as ann's.
I just can't seem to get into this whole brouhaha. But my goodness, thank you for that link to The Clenis, from which I explored more of Wikiality, a site I'd not seen before. My goodness it's hilarious; for example: Matthew McConaughey...
Thanks for proving my point.
Which would be...?
That you take yourself way to seriously, have no sense of humor, no tolerance for anyone who isn't a reflection of yourself and can't recognize what a twit you are.
My goodness, I said "my goodness" twice in that previous post. What is the matter with me!?
our little...Dust Bunny Queen said this about Scott:
"...you take yourself way to seriously, have no sense of humor, no tolerance for anyone who isn't a reflection of yourself and can't recognize what a twit you are."
WOW!!!
could you tell us how you know all of this...or if you're just sucking up to ann.
*there's a lot of that going around.
Mindsteps: what makes you write asking why Ann Althouse writes what she writes? Do your thing and wail with it.
Lucky: c'mon...suck even harder.
See Lucky, thats the difference between you and me - I would have said get off your knees and wipe your chin before you choke on it
You're supposed to be part of the sophisticated enlightened crowd, yet your insults are crass and base. Learn to troll properly if you insist on flaming.
Fen said..."See Lucky, thats the difference between you and me - I would have said get off your knees and wipe your chin before you choke on it. You're supposed to be part of the sophisticated enlightened crowd, yet your insults are crass and base."
i see.
"get off your knees and wipe your chin before you choke on it..."
is much less "crass and base??"
interesting slant.
fen-fen,
i forgot to ask.
how's your bunkmate, pogo?
That you take yourself way to seriously, have no sense of humor, no tolerance for anyone who isn't a reflection of yourself and can't recognize what a twit you are.
You share one characteristic with Althouse: you like to spout off not only in the absence of evidence, but in the presence of contradictory evidence. Look, my humorlessness is a verifiable fact. (Althouse has, after all, referred my prose as "hilarious" before.) I certainly can't stand anyone who isn't a reflection of myself, as Jeff will tell you. And I certainly take myself too seriously. So, guilty on all charges ... but that doesn't change the fact that Althouse's defense of her inane Freudian reading is at odds with her attempt to call it parody, or that she continues to publish material unworthy of an academic even in his or her most frivolous moments.
CLENIS? Agh, what an awful word.
Sounds like what a hermaphrodite has down there.
No, sounds like the X-rated version of the Swiffer. Doubles as a dildo, when you're not mopping your floor.
Justin: What's missing in the anaysis of the word "Schmuck" is that the German meaning, "jewel," and the Yiddish meaning, "head of the penis," are one and the same -- as in "the family jewels."
And that's an image she would want in a campaign ad for what reason precisely?
Because the Clintons can't help themselves; they're driven by their own and the collective unconscious to forever after refer to that which is never again supposed to be mentioned, whether it's his screwing around, or the health care debacle, or Ivy League elitism, or even murdering conspiratorial gangsterdom. These memes (I'm not saying they're murderers, I though that was almost as nuts as 9/11 denial) rise up and possess their most professionally scripted efforts to be populist, regular, lovable folks with an affectionate down-home marriage.
Amba, that was good, really good.
I mean it.
Seven Machos said...
Mindsteps: what makes you write asking why Ann Althouse writes what she writes? Do your thing and wail with it.
Seven Machos:
I appreciate the encouragement. I really do. But asking that kind of question is my thing. Thanks again.
Pogo: What, you mean we don't always mean everything we say here?? ;)
Reading around, I spotted this comment on The Stranger's Blog, where they seem not to have heard of the onion flap.
http://slog.thestranger.com/
Commentor writes: My favorite part of this ad is Bill looking at the carrot sticks and getting sad for the lack of onion rings.
amba said..."Because the Clintons can't help themselves; they're driven by their own and the collective unconscious to forever after refer to that which is never again supposed to be mentioned, whether it's his screwing around, or the health care debacle, or Ivy League elitism,"
so, can we assume you've never read a biography of bill or hillary clinton?
bill clinton grew up in a dirt-floored house, raised by a black nany, while his mother worked full-time...because his father had abandoned them. he becames a rhodes scholar, governor twice and president of the united state for two terms.
most would consider that an extraordinary success story.
you, apparently don't.
hillary grewm up in a family with a father who owned a small business, her mother a homemaker.
she began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the yale child study center. her first scholarly paper, "children under the law", was published in the harvard educational review in late 1973 and became frequently cited in the field. she also took on cases of child abuse at yale-new haven hospital, and worked at the city legal services to provide free advice for the poor.
voted one of the top 100 attorneys in america...twice
if that's failure...gimme all you got.
*p.s. newt was screwing other women while his wife died, guli's been married 3 times and announed his divorce via the news...before his wife knew.
amba, about the clinton's: "their most professionally scripted efforts to be populist, regular, lovable folksan?
right...and g.w. bush is a down home texan...from connecticut.
and reagan was a cowboy...living in santa barbara.
*you people are soooooooooooooooo transparent and duuuummmmbbbb.
amba...sorry,
i forgot: delay and livingston were also screwing around.
more to come.
two must sees and a two bonus picks:
1. The Carrot or the Stick (2004)
2. The Onion Patch (1915)
*honorable mentions:
French Fried Patootie (1941)
French Fried Frolic (1949)
Luckyoldson: you're making Bill sound like Abe Lincoln with the dirt-floored cabin! You forgot Hot Springs and the casinos, and how much Virginia loved a good time.
Yale, Rhodes scholar, governor . . . but is that what they'll be remembered for? Or for the tragicomic interplay between his appetites and her ambitions? Why is great drama mostly about downfall? You think the Clintons are being painted unfairly by their enemies, but actually they're real-life dramatic characters who are in the process of writing their own ending. The screen goes blank --
Lucky, quite a few of us know those facts that you've been throwing around. It's not like Amba's got her head in the sand.
Why are we never preached to about Ronald Reagan's, Bob Dole's, or Richard Nixon's modest childhoods? Why do Al Gore's, Hillary Clinton's, John Kennedy's, and John Kerry's rather immodest childhoods not matter?
It's almost like these lefty loons are getting fooled into buying a script presented for political purposes.
Freder,
Somebody asks:
"Castrating woman? Is that an idea you've ever heard of in connection with Hillary?"
And you reply:
"And that's an image she would want in a campaign ad for what reason precisely?"
To which I say: surely you can't be unaware that Hillary is famous for getting the tone wrong, for swinging and missing, can you? Brings back memories of the Health Care Task Force with its secret committees and Bus Tours and "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized business out there" awfulness, doesn't it?
What should we infer when the result of that search is clearly about 69,800 and not "over 70,000 hits."
Personally, I think the thing about Chelsea parallel parking must be a reference to Mary Cheney. Or maybe Bill's return to fidelity, as represented by missionary style, as represented by parallel parking.
Post a Comment