ADDED: Should I take care what I put up now, as the new readers from the Village Voice click over? How many? You might wonder. Based on the Site Meter, 29. Ouch.
AND: I see that Tom Tomorrow has illustrated all of us, including me. I feel really weird about that... mainly out of vanity.
MORE: Armed Liberal says:
[A]side from being a juvenile jackass, [the author Roy Edroso is] a tool. Why? Because while nonsense like this is great for making the 15% of True Believers feel Really Really Good about themselves, ... it makes the other 36% that we on the left need to do things like - you know, win elections - pretty pissed off at the smug arrogance that's so proudly on display....I agree. It's counterproductive. Why do people like Roy want to demonize me? Roy even designates me as a "moderate 'Democrat'" and notes that I voted for Obama in the primary. If that's enough to make you a stupid, evil right winger, how do the Democrats hope to get enough votes to win?
We're in an election cycle where the GOP candidate should be staked out like a sacrificial goat waiting for the knife. Instead, we get Democratic thinkers worrying - appropriately - that the Democratic candidate is going to actually lose in November. And one of the big reasons is that the public voice of the Party is cranky, smug yuppies.
AND: A comment over at the Voice by David on Wed Apr 16, 2008, 09:26:
I think this tripe is what David Mamet was referring to in his "Why I am No Longer a Brain Dead Liberal" article a few weeks ago. Heck of a job, guys.Exactly.
Charles Johnson — another target of the Voice piece — like me, notes that there's hardly any traffic clicking over from there: "Since this article was published, we’ve received a grand total of ... count ’em ... 32 hits..."
Protein Wisdom says: "It’s wry, amusing, and demonstrates perfectly the left’s contention that if you disagree with them, you’re either stupid or evil, or some combination of both."
Megan McArdle rants (her verb) about the term Roy applied to her: "lipstick libertarian."
I do wear lipstick (well, usually gloss), and more than occasionally eyeliner and mascara and a little shadow. And what the hell does that have to do with my political ideas?Yes, the lefties think sexism is quite okay when it's used to attack their opponents. I'm too thick-skinned — despite the routine application of moisturizer — to let things like that annoy me anymore. But I don't mind saving the evidence to use against people like Roy when my wily feminine emotions tell me to attack.
... I'm annoyed that a typically female narrative style, which touches on personal experience, is derided as fundamentally unserious--particularly when it is so derided by people who admire it in feminist bloggers.
And I'm perilously close to despair at finding that so many of my correspondents not only believe that pointing out that I am 35 and unmarried is a devastating insult, but apparently expect me to share that opinion.Despair!? I recommend pity aimed at those who flaunt their incomprehension of the benefits of singlehood.
Posts
80 comments:
He needs an editor.
, a liberal blogger defended Althouse, who then attacked the liberal blogger ("you obviously believe I simply fail to believe strongly enough in liberal and left-wing principles")
That one's a good observation. The inexplicable-storm Althouse.
[yawn]
He should go work for the NYTs.
Why'd you delete my comment? Vanity?
Or maybe it just disappeared when you added your updates. Not like my comment was all that provocative.
Still, how about a little credit for giving you the link to the rest of the illustrations? Attention must be paid!
It's amazing how certain groups can declare anyone with a different opinion than them as some combination of stupid and evil. They truly don't seem to grasp the childishness therein.
"They truly don't seem to grasp the childishness therein."
Partisanship is a form of arrested development.
I didn't delete a comment.
And I didn't get the link to the illustrations from the illusive comment.
"You should post that cartoon as your avatar!"
I would if it were prettier. He just drew in bags under my eyes.
Not a good likeness. If someone told me it was a drawing of Hillary Clinton instead of Althouse, I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.
Perhaps my eyes are plauying tricks, but I love that Tom includes the necklace you wore in your profile pic back in the days when... Um... You wore your hair like that. So no prizes for guessing which pic Tom drew from. Interesting too that in recounting the Chicago incident, they frame it in a way intended to lead the audience; if they'd said "was upset at a libertarian conference because other participants were insufficiently concerned with civil rights," that would cause too much dissonance in an article designed to delineate the bad guys' order of battle. And despite their dismissive tone about it, $50 says that they didn't read Thelma & Louise and the Law: Do Rape Shield Rules Matter? before going to print.
Ruth Anne Adams said...
"You should post that cartoon as your avatar!"
Copyright?
"Hey...they think you're only 20% evil."
It's a ratio of stupid to evil, so it's kind of a lose-lose conceit. ;)
(This is the pic I had in mind in my previous comment.)
That article badly needs some editing. And Jonah Goldberg looks just like Michael Moore.
Funny what they picked to say about the Althouse blog. They sure come off as prissy and humorless.
And conservative bloggers are only either stupid or evil. Not even an attempt at objectivity. Typical of the Left.
Well, geez, none of the cartoons is meant to be flattering, you're all Stupid and Evil, remember?
Wow, too bad no one could do this about the oh-so-pretty left blogosphere...
Hated it. Every single freaking word. It's why I no longer enjoy talking with people. People suck. Liberals suck worst of all. I officially despise them all. Dogs. Now dogs I can deal with. At least they're reasonable and trainable.
Ruth Anne Adams said...
Hey...they think you're only 20% evil.
The Voice thinks that the NYT is part of the VRWC.
I read that stat the other way. I hope Ann got lots of "dumb" points for the photos. absent that, I'd read the meter as dumb/smart
and I'd rather have Glenn's 5/95 rating than an 80/20
Wow, too bad no one could do this about the oh-so-pretty left blogosphere...
I'm sure somebody has. And it's probably equally childish.
Tom Tomorrow really isn't a very good cartoonist. Everyone has the same chin and mouth.
And cripes, what a tiresome, humorless bunch at Village Voice!
Tom Tomorrow draws you in Bucky Red!
The Right Wing Blogosphere must be pretty small if they need Althouse and Megan McArdle to fill out the list.
I didn't read the text, but the pictures were fun. I especially liked the look of surprise, surprise and great surprise on the faces of the Powerline guys.
I do wonder if Tom Tomorrow is capable of drawing expressions other than grim authority or blank surprise. Blankness seems to be his specialty, anyway, and I don't seem much evidence that he can get beyond it.
Is it just me or is the Powerline illustration hilarious? In all fairness, you seem to almost always be smiling even when your attempting to flay us liberals, Ann, so I'll agree with your issues with your likeness. But the Powerline one, just seems spot on with included expressions of confusion, angst and raw masculinity.
I forgot about the onion rings. I would have made it 90/10. You're not that evil Ann.
"Hey...they think you're only 20% evil."
I think it's a ratio, not a percentage. I have a high stupid-to-evil ratio -- which is true! I think that's good. It doesn't purport to say what % of me is stupid and evil, only that I have 4 parts of stupid to every 1 part of evil. Since I'm hardly stupid — I could show you my academic record — I must be practically a saint, evil-wise.
mutaman said..."I forgot about the onion rings. I would have made it 90/10. You're not that evil Ann."
The onion rings post was a test of your intelligence. You didn't do too well on it, mutaman.
Cute. I wonder if there will be a similar treatment of the left side of the BS. Thanks for the Tom Tomorrow link - I missed it on the Village Voice site.
Tom Tomorrow drew you only in the same sense that Phillip M. Parker wrote The 2007-2012 Outlook for Tufted Washable Scatter Rugs, Bathmats and Sets That Measure 6-Feet by 9-Feet or Smaller in India.
I feel really weird about that... mainly out of vanity.
Well, at least Ann knows what her Simpsons' character would look like.
Not having read the article, I was surprised to see the company Ann was put in -- really creepy humorless ideoblogs like powerline and little green footballs -- places that make Rush's dittoheads look like iconoclasts.
Take lightly criticism issuing from a tabloid that contains 48 pages of ads for "escorts".
The Village Voice has a billboard on the Bowery that reads "Where have all the junkies gone?"
Because, you know, having the streets full of helpless, dying drug addicts made the city so much more, you know, real.
I actually enjoyed the article, esp. having read most of the blogs mentioned. But I will also suggest that including someone in this list who voted for BHO in the primary indicates to me that they had to fudge things a bit.
29 hits! This may lead to a whole new Internet phenomenon: The "Voicealanch!"
What a great read! I think they summarized everyone perfectly with just the right amount of snarkiness and spot-on characterizations.
Some commenters here are disappointed at how "humorless" the Villlage Voice is but, sorry guys, this wasn't a satire--it was simply what it purported to be, a guide to the right wing blogosphere, clearly intended for people on the left.
I know, I know, it might be easier for a right winger to think of himself/herself with a sense of humor to distract from the crushing despair and sadness that comes with being a conservative...but, you can't win 'em all!
Hey, at least you got some cool illlustrations.
P.S. Take heart, Ann. Michelle Malkin is stupider than you.
"P.S. Take heart, Ann. Michelle Malkin is stupider than you."
Unfortunately, I know what a ratio is, which says you are wrong. She may simply be less evil.
The Voice day is long done. They can't even sell it anymore, it's a giveaway. It's like being dissed in the pennysaver.
Simon, please don't ask the professor to play "Misty" for me, ok dude.
Also it's more fun to be evil. Stupid, not so much.
The irony, of course, is that the Voice is criticizing blogs that are far, far, far more important than it could ever hope to be when it comes to shaping public opinion.
Well, at least Ann knows what her Simpsons' character would look like.
Tom Tomorrow is Matt Groening?
Those pictures...I take it Mr. Tomorrow is ideologically opposed to those he's drawing?
Or he just sucks.
Ann Althouse said:
We're in an election cycle where the GOP candidate should be staked out like a sacrificial goat waiting for the knife. Instead, we get Democratic thinkers worrying - appropriately - that the Democratic candidate is going to actually lose in November. And one of the big reasons is that the public voice of the Party is cranky, smug yuppies.I agree. It's counterproductive. Why do people like Roy want to demonize me? Roy even designates me as a "moderate 'Democrat'" and notes that I voted for Obama in the primary. If that's enough to make you a stupid, evil right winger, how do the Democrats hope to get enough votes to win?
Ms. Althouse,
This is the astounding arrogance I wrote about the other day. As if democrats need to court you in order to get your vote in order to "win" the general. I think many of us would prefer to lose and watch folks like you be hung by your own petard. I want Mccain to win, he is the best political comeuppance for all of the George Bush voters like yourself out there. The only way to fix your ass real good is to keep the right wing failed theories and policies coming.
When the public at large looks for scapegoats for the disasters folks like you have visited upon this country they will have by your own admission one of the culprits. I am thrilled to have the knowledge that you voted for Mr. Bush in 2004, and your continuing arrogance will make your comeuppance(I meditate on it) that much sweeter, babe.
We want revenge on folks like you.
Take your vote for a democrat in 2008 and shove it. We ain't gonna pander to you, ever!
Got it?
Not that Tom Tomorrow draws for Groening, just that Ann's caricature was closer to Patty and Selma or to Mrs. Krabappel, than her real appearance.
And I don't understand what "integrity" said about Ann's comment at all. Ann commented neutrally, like a TV sports commentator, about the likelihood of success of a given strategy. She is not asking to be courted, but points out that people like her form the margin of victory for either side.
I just read through Integrity's post twice and I have determined that it is completely serious.
Where to begin? Is it the hilarity of the conviction? Is it the To a gas chamber -- go! tone? Is it the brilliant idea that people should support disagreeable candidates so that the country can go to hell in a hand basket? Is it the not too subtexty subtext that the author will enjoy national economic and political calamity just so she can say "I told you so"?
The mind truly reels.
"integrity" - don't post here anymore until you learn the proper use of the English language, kthxbai.
Got it?
And the winner for jack-assine-ry of the day award is (ding-ding-ding-ding)(wait for it...)
Integrity! Grand prize today is a box of ClingFree fabric softener and a pack of BitterMint gum.
If there someone else that could willingly spare a ticket to the clue train for the big I, concerning blogging in general or this blawg in peculiar is aboot, we all be oh-so-appreciative and then we'd be able to stop pandering to each other.
-cp
Oh, and a PSA while we're at it: stop plate tectonics NOW! Only you can prevent continental drift!
I don't think it's wrong to say that Malkin is more stupid than Althouse. The ratios don't mean anything to me.
ZPS,
That's all right. Ratios didn't mean anything to the author either. He just figured (correctly, I guess) that his audience was innumerate.
The moderate Democrat thing was a joke, obviously. The full description was "moderate Democrat who disapproves of everything the Democrats do."
It amazes me that Tom Tomorrow has a career. I'm a better artist than him, and I suck.
The really bizarre thing about including Megan McArdle on the list as a "lipstick libertarian" is that the points where she differs from standard libertarianism are ones which place her further to the left. She favors, for example, regulation of business, government action to fight global warming, and programs to provide assistance to the poor. The folks at Reason magazine are to her right; how come they're not on the list?
The answer is easy, of course. Many on the left still use a single question to determine if a person is "right-wing" or "left-wing": "did you support the Iraq war?". Megan did, and even though she has since come to consider the war a horrible mistake she still gets classified as "right-wing" under that one-drop rule.
Ratios are written like this--1:5. With a colon. Not a slash. They should not add up to 100, because they should be written with the smallest whole number possible. So if Edroso actually wanted to write a stupid to evil ratio, Althouse's would be 4:1.
Using the 80/20 notation, I think what he's really aiming for is percent composition.
Lurker -- What if the ratio is 59:41? Hmmmm?
Come on, you can't tell me that this description isn't spot on:
"Moderate" Democrat who disapproves of nearly everything the Democratic Party does.
Couldn't the Voice afford an actual cartoonist?
Tom Tomorrow has a bad-Xerox-plus-Microsoft-Paint schtick that allows a completely inartisitic bore to be a "cartoonist" in much the same way that playing Guitar Hero makes one Eric Clapton.
I do like to see his work, however, as it remains a reliable clue that the associated book or article can be completely ignored.
"really creepy humorless ideoblogs like powerline and little green footballs"
Hmmm...so any blog that (purportedly) sticks to serious topics is "humorless."
That is like criticizing an DVD Player Instruction Manual for being humorless. So?
Anyway, I have found humor on both of those blogs, and have never thought of them as "creepy."
Assuming you have actually read those blogs, perhaps your own ideology is clouding your view?
They should not add up to 100, because they should be written with the smallest whole number possible.
But letting them add up to 100 permits ready comparison (Ann, much more evil and less stupid than MM)
Using the 80/20 notation, I think what he's really aiming for is percent composition.
Assumes the author has a very uncharitable view of the right (and center). Ann has high percentages of non-stupid and not-evil.
mock: I'd have to drink the koolaid to enjoy those blogs. There are leftwing blogs I can't tolerate (and vice versa) either.
"We want revenge on folks like you."
Oh I so can't wait for that Civil War to begin. What a humorous 1 hour battle that will be.
Tom Tomorrow, like Ted Rall, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Green Day, Richard Serra, Malkin, and countless others, figured out an essential truth of the market: if you're not particularly talented (or if you used to be talented but you're now past your peak), then aggressively apply your limited abilities in the service of one ideological position or the other. Figure out what people on your "side" want to see and hear, and feed it to them, simply, directly and in abundance. It doesn't always work, but when it does, you're in the money. If it doesn't work on one ideological side, try switching to the other. See Huffington, Ariana.
Luck also shone upon Tom Tomorrow in that his moment coincided with the fashion for ironic faux-naive drawing. Now you don't even have to pretend to draw well or even interestingly!
But letting them add up to 100 permits ready comparison (Ann, much more evil and less stupid than MM)
Except that it doesn't, because it is a ratio. You can't compare ratios when the numerator and the demoninator unrelated to each other and variable.
Say one person has a height-to-weight ratio of 40:60 and the other has a height-to-weight ratio of 20:80. Which one is taller? Answer: you can't tell. The first person could be a 5'0" (60 inch) tall, 90-pound woman, the latter a 6'5", 300-pound linebacker. They could be exactly the same height, with the latter being 170% heavier than the former.
Say Ann has an absolute "stupidity" of 4 and an "evilness" of 1; Powerline has a stupidity of 50,000 and an evilness of 150,000. That makes Powerline's ratio 1:4 to Ann's 4:1. But if you said "Ann's stupider than Powerline"... well, that would be a stupid thing to say. :)
The Village Voice dumps off great stacks of their papers in the lobbies of my college. I've never seen a student reading one, but they do often use them for painter's palettes (to be discouraged) or to sop up water or solvent spills (to be encouraged).
I don't think the VV would burden its readers with ratios considering the comparative percentage model is easier to understand.
But maybe it's up for interpretation:
Proportions are built from ratios. A "ratio" is just a comparison between two different things. For instance, someone can look at a group of people, count noses, and refer to the "ratio of men to women" in the group. Suppose there are thirty-five people, fifteen of whom are men. Then the ratio of men to women is 15 to 20.
(Notice that, in the expression "the ratio of men to women", "men" came first. This order is very important, and must be respected: whichever word came first, its number must come first. If the expression had been "the ratio of women to men", then the ratio would have been "20 to 15".)
There are two other notations for this "15 to 20" ratio:
15 : 20
15/20
You should be able to recognize all three notations; you will probably be expected to know them for your test.
Yes, the lefties think sexism is quite okay when it's used to attack their opponents.
I'd propose retiring the term entirely, until it acquires a positive connotation.
Old Dilbert cartoon : Wally, Dilbert and some babe holding a copy of ESTRO magazine at the lunch table.
Babe : Did you know that men make 25% more than women today? A woman makes only $.75 for every dollar a man makes.
Wally : Actually, that's 33% more.
Three men went to a motel. The motel manager said a room cost $30, so each man put up $10 and went to their room. Later, the manager realized the room was only $25 so he sent the bellhop back to the three guys' room with five one dollar bills. The bellhop couldn't figure out how to split the five dollars among the three men, so he decided to give each one of them one dollar and he kept the other two.
This meant that the three men paid nine dollars each for the room for a total of $27. Add the two dollars that the bellhop kept = $29.
Where did the other dollar go?
"Where did the other dollar go?"
Never mind about the dollar. Why are three grown men sharing a $25 dollar hotel room?
The three guys are bitter, religious, anti-immigrant gun nuts. Thus, they have no money. I forgot to add that.
That's a pretty clever brain teaser, Seven.
7M at the risk of spoiling your joke:
They each paid 9 which equals 27.
The Owner got 25 of the 27 and the Bellhop got 2.
9+9+9+27
25+2=27
balance
Peter deVries, I think, in Vale of Laughter, diagnoses the trick as that you have to decide first what problem you're going to solve. Is the problem about the $25 or the problem about the $30?
The statement tricks you into solving a little of each.
Peter deVries, I think, in Vale of Laughter, diagnoses the trick as that you have to decide first what problem you're going to solve.
Yeah, but you can't trust a guy who
works for the Harokonnen.
"Many on the left still use a single question to determine if a person is 'right-wing' or 'left-wing': 'did you support the Iraq war?'"
That's ridiculous: since when has support for or opposition to the Iraq war--or any war--ever been a function of one's political leanings? I consider myself somewhat left of center, and I do not presume to categorize people as either "left or "right" based on their position on the war in Iraq. One of my favorite writers against the war is Paul Craig Roberts, who excoriates the Bush administration for its ruinous, cruel, stupid, and criminal policies, and who was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE magazine is also strongly opposed to our criminal aggression in Iraq.
I'd say it's more the case that, in order to discredit those who oppose our recent wars--basically, all of them post-WWII--the architects of war and their transmitters of state propaganda (the press) paint the opponents of war as "leftist" to mark them out as "different," "dangerous," "loony," "not to be taken seriously," etc. Opponents of war have always been hetergeneous, politically and philosophically, yet by calling them "leftists," the state chooses to diminish them as knee-jerk radicals, protesting state policy not from any well-grounded or ethical concerns, but only because that's what "agitators" do--"agitate."
Cook, you are condemned out of your own mouth. PCR and AmCon are the next thing to actual fascists, but they're antiwar today so you're for them. Just shows that the 'wings' meet at the extremes.
Question is, I suppose, who's whoring for whom; or perhaps, who's the catamite or are both of you bottoms? But as long as all your political pink bits are moistened and rubbing properly, "all cats are gray," eh?
"Cook, you are condemned out of your own mouth. PCR and AmCon are the next thing to actual fascists...."
How is this pertinent to my point? How am I "condemned out of my own mouth?" I never said PCR or AmCon were NOT "near fascists," though I don't know if that's even true; it may be so, but your assertion of it does not suffice as proof.
In fact, if it is so, it merely amplifies my point: I do not identify those who favor the war as "right" or those who oppose the war as "left," (and by extension, I doubt most "leftists" (sic) use such simplistic categorization, either: this is a function of the state, seeking to denigrate and minimize those who oppose their policies as "leftists," i.e., the "lunatic fringe" (sic)). As I said, opponents of war are and always have been heterogeneous, all with their own views, politics, philosophies, and bases for opposing (any given) war.
Moreover, my citing of PCR and AmCon does not mean "I like them now," but that I agree with their stances on the war, and find their arguments against it powerfully stated. On other issues, I might vigorously disagree with them.
(I deleted my previous comment merely to make a couple of corrective edits; the above post is substantially the deleted post.)
On other issues, I might vigorously disagree with them.
I daresay you would. I daresay you would feel the need for a bath afterwards.
Oh, I see, so you're a pacifist, a Quaker or a Jain or something? Can I please have your address so I can come and despoil your household?
Since you won't fight and since getting others to fight for you would be hypocritical, you should leap at this opportunity to sacrifice yourself and your whole family for principle.
I promise to try to really stretch your principles to their breaking point, especially if there are any nubile females on hand.
No, I don't have much respect for pacifists.
You infer too much. Did I say I was a pacifist? I suppose I am, if by that one means I oppose imperialist wars of aggression, lacking any legitimate or compelling self-defense component. I suppose I'm not, if by that one means that I support a war of necessity, that is, a war of self-defense.
Our war in Iraq--as with all of our wars subsequent to WW II (and most of them before it)--is NOT a war of self-defense, and is, in fact, a criminal war of imperialist aggression and acquisition.
"Many on the left still use a single question to determine if a person is 'right-wing' or 'left-wing': 'did you support the Iraq war?'"
That's ridiculous: since when has support for or opposition to the Iraq war--or any war--ever been a function of one's political leanings?
I know it is ridiculous. I didn't say the lefties were *correct* to classify people that way. I just pointed out that they do.
And yet you offer no proof for your assertion.
Cook, don't you ever become tired of spouting cliches?
Post a Comment