January 25, 2009
Media Matters doesn't understand the word "despite."
Talk about dumb. And you know, spelling a name wrong some of the time is actually dumber than spelling it wrong all of the time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
138 comments:
Certain of your critics manage to be both funny and sad at the same time.
You should consider giving out some kind of "not-getting-it" award.
I've already noticed that Obamaniacs can't accept any implications that The Great One is not the most popular person in the world.
And now, they demonstrate that the just don't get Ann(e)'s humor.
Borders stock price?
0.53
52 week high:
11.60
Doomed.
That's hilarious.
The way I red it was that "online" is where is at.
But later in the comments that night I interpreted how the post might be red by a critic... and walla.
Lem said 11:55 pm..
..."I got to hand it Althouse. I don't think even Rush would claim that Obama has dealt a blow to Americas reading culture ;)
I put a smiley at the end to suggest that's not how I red her post.
These people are so predictable.
The comments are as poorly written as the piece - "sponser"? Lovely...
Oh! I see. The point of your post was that people were not clustered around a display of Obama books fighting fang and claw to grab them. How stupid of me! Here I thought your point was that some sleezebag authors were cranking out quicky books to make a couple bucks in the reflected halo of the Great One.
I guess I should resign from my job in shame and humiliation at my lack of ability to grasp a simple photo essay, and go clean out septic tanks for a living. Probably make more money and certainly have less shit to deal with.
Added fun: The lack of reading comprehension displayed in interpreting a post about bookstores. Heh.
I dreamt Eric Boehlert was a flop in your Maidenform® bra.
The interesting thing is that Media Matters has a blog. Who knew?
"sleezebag"?
The point, "Big Mike," is that the store, as a whole, is empty. Nothing can attract customers, it seems, even the man of the hour himself.
This guy is one of the morons Althouse has been fighting her whole life.
Come on, if you can't hit center body mass holding the pistol in your left hand, switch hands. And the public beating after the moron has left your domecile complicates your legal position. Know your rights, know the law, and know how to hit what you are aiming at.
Just think about it Althouse: that lame, laughable post about you probably cost George Soros at least a thousand dollars!
Something about the MM item seems desperate. Do they not understand that your post was much more about bookstores than about Obama? Do they not even know you are an Obama supporter?
Come on, if you can't hit center body mass holding the pistol in your left hand, switch hands.
He had his drink in his right hand!
What's more important?
Disrupting an intruder or having a drink?
Just think about it Althouse: that lame, laughable post about you probably cost George Soros at least a thousand dollars!
Very good.
Obviously, he won't miss it. Or he can mess around with the Thai currency and make it up in about 3 seconds.
Wow. Boehlert displays amazing reading incomprehension skills.
It's interesting how eagerly the left attacks a liberal Obama supporter, simply because they don't think that she's liberal enough.
It's almost enough to give me hope, in this new era of Hopenchange.
Media Matters gets something wrong? I heard the sun came up in the east today. That water is still wet.
"She ignores the record-breaking number of people who turned out in D.C. for the inauguration."
What record would that be?
"She ignores the record-breaking number of people who turned out in D.C. for the inauguration."
When did I "ignore" that? Shouldn't I have had to have written something inconsistent with that fact (or pseudo-fact) before I should be said to have ignored it? You might just as well say I've been ignoring gazelles and popsicles.
""She ignores the record-breaking number of people who turned out in D.C. for the inauguration."
This whole Obama thing is revenge for all the liberals who couldn't sit with the popular kids at lunch in junior high school. Now they run the entire lunch room.
Honestly, to coin Ann as a right-wing blogger is just insulting. Furthermore, these people don't have a single iota of a clue as to what a conservative or a right-winger is, so why claim to know. Thirdly, why are liberals/leftists always so shrill about defending the mongloids who vote in other shrill leftist/liberals to positions of power on the backs, certainly not the brains, of the mongoloids they helped to foster and create? What the fuck are you guys defending? The mongoloids don't care because you presented a happy face to a fraud and they clapped gleefully to get him in for you. Be proud, your lemmings paid off, but yet you still see a need to swing your dicks so low as to become asymptotic to the ground in your blather to fight against we evil conservatives. Morons.
God Bless Eric Boehlert
Because honestly, what other obscure liberal blogger delivers unintentional hilarity as consistently as he does? (Talk about a crowded field of contenders.) He's a treasure for the funny bone (and for mixed metaphors which don't make any sense).
His latest bout of comic relief is here. The gist is that while visiting Althouse's blog he spotted a post about a nearly-deserted bookstore and an abundance of books about his holiness, the 44th Dalai Obama. But--and this was the newsworthy part, according to Boehlert--Ann was being a silly little woman who doesn't know her place. And he linked to the "hilarious" post to prove it!
"Despite shrines to Obama, bookstore was nearly empty," he misstates as the title of that post, omitting the definite article and replacing the big French-derived word "deserted" with a word someone of his literacy level can understand, the Anglo-Saxon term "empty".
Ah, left-wing blog logic. Ann Althouse engages in the dangerous activity known as "thinking for oneself", believs bin Ladin is a worse person than Bush, and doesn't fantasize about swapping spit with Barack. Therefore she is a neocon fascist wingnut who waterboards Afghani babies and hunts homosexuals. He also continues to amuse us with his lack of proofreading, by using a definite article where it is not needed ("the amidst"). He then goes on to reveal that he eats dinner at 5:30 pm on Friday nights, probably so that he can be tucked-in by his 8:00 bedtime.
So Boehlert, naturally, suggests that Althouse is a big stupid-head. That she hates Obama so much that she voted for him just to teach him a lesson. Actually, Boehlert seems to suggests Althouse doesn't get it. That Obama's responsible for the oceans beginning to slow and the planet beginning to heal because before the Obamessiah, no politican had ever promised hope and change. (I told you he's comedy gold.)
His glibness was all the proof Boehlert needed to prove his point.
He ignores Althouse's sky-high approval ratings.
He ignores the record-breaking number of people who turned out to comment on her Palin posts.
He ignores the nearly 260 million people who couldn't be bothered to watch the coronation on TV and the thousands who Obama detained without trial and tortured in the now-infamous Guantanamo tunnel.
He ignores common sense, basic literacy and maturity.
He ignores that Zachary Paul Sire is alive.
None of that matters people, because Erice saw what he saw. Hmm, and liberals wonder why their end of the blogosphere isn't taken seriously?
Oh, speaking of. Erice, did you ever figure out that you're a douchebag? Just checking....
Palladian makes a good point about the rich leftists like Soros who fund and control groups like Media Matters.
The average American thinks these groups are "non-partisan". I was watching C-Span this morning and the guests were a guy from Heritage Foundation and Matt Yglesias, a weiny from Center for American Progress.
Several callers complained that the Heritage group was nefarious and evil but nary a peep about its well-funded liberal counterpart (CFAP and Yglesias).
That sounded like how my sisters argued in their teens-- entirely irrationally.
The thing is, it wasn't just "a bunch of magazines," it was all the magazines, and all the books stacked as if a shrine had been constructed and as if no other books on any other subject were marketable at that moment.
But then to say Borders, "which is in the amidst of an economic free-fall by the way," Ha ha ha, in the amidst. Well gee, are books not being sold anywhere? Amazon is doing OK. Could one possible reason be their unbiased attitude toward presenting reading material? Just possibly? Naaaaaah.
What independent wants to visit a bookstore that's reliable overtly obnoxiously liberal? None, that's who.
The thing that kills me, just kills me, is the insistence this is a conservative blog. The actual conservatives I know, by my understanding of conservatism, wouldn't tolerate a fraction of what gets posted here.
But Eric is right in one sense, Althouse, you are comic gold, and God bless you for it.
It's truly insane that so many liberal sites waste their time trying to critique/attack Althouse when there are such bigger and truer conservative foes for them to pick fights with. They have no idea what goes on here.
I'm often ashamed to be ideologically aligned with these people, especially when they make such horrific spelling errors. Idiots.
ZPS-
Low hanging fruit. At least in their minds. Actual issues take more effort and thinking. But this is media matters. Being wrong is their gig. David Brock was despicable as a conservative and remains so today.
ZPS,
How dare you compare some liberal sites to idiots. Don't you know how insulting that is?
To the idiots ;)
(I'm sorry that was too tempting to write)
I think it's fair to say that the comments here are mostly conservative.
Still, the reason that it *works*, IMO, is that there is enough variation of opinion that there is something to talk about.
Makes it interesting.
"It's truly insane that so many liberal sites waste their time trying to critique/attack Althouse when there are such bigger and truer conservative foes for them to pick fights with."
But maybe I really am quite dangerous ... precisely because I'm not a big, clear, lumbering enemy.
Yes its funny and they don't get it. But its typical of how the people who gives us "news" operate. Starting from a certain point of view, devoting too little time to get the context and history (as well as facts), they act like they are purveyors of truth.
One of the great things here is you have to think and appreciate how Ann uses her blog.
What makes them stupid is they think we are stupid.
@JohnAnnArbor, I think you don't get it. You are depending too much on the title of Prof. Althouse's photoblog and not on the photos themselves. Note her comments on the third photo.
BTW, every Saturday in the fall I root for two teams: my alma mater and whoever is playing Michigan.
Prof. Althouse, you are exactly who they have to take down. You have an open mind, and there is nothing more dangerous to closed minds than an open one.
Goethe wrote that "there is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action." I think Eric Boehlert just proved it all over again.
I too find it funny that The Others describe Althouse as a conservative.
One of the appeals of the blog (for me, anyway) is that conservatives do post here. And while the insults sometimes fly, it is a reaonable place for people who hold different opinions to write about whatever the blogess decides, (and more,) in a usually civil, often quite laugh- out-loud, and frequently informative way.
While not quite full of Bill Bennett's "candor, intelligence and good will" it is one of the few blog communities I have surfed which has such a diverse core group and generally avoids Godwin's rule.
Funny (too bad?) that whatshizname hasn't been able to figure out Ann(e)'s nuance. Not to mention the ambiance ....
How should Althouse tag the post?
They also don't understand the meaning of the word "amidst":
which is in the amidst
Oh yeah, and "clever" (try reading pretty much anything they write).
Here's a comment someone wrote over there: "If I was to go to her wonderful blog to post something supporting a liberal point of view. How long would it remain? Would it be subject to friendly respectful debate? How many posts before I was banned do you think?"
Zach wrote:
I'm often ashamed to be ideologically aligned with these people, especially when they make such horrific spelling errors. Idiots.
Nice to see you posting, Zach!
Your sentiment is much appreciated by many of us righties, believe me. Needless-to-say, we've all felt that many times (like whenever I read anything by Michael Savage...).
Ann wrote:
But maybe I really am quite dangerous ... precisely because I'm not a big, clear, lumbering enemy.
No, you're worse for them. A potential big voice who already has been published by the NYT, etc. And I believe we've discussed your supposed "apostasy" before:
Their animosity has to do with you being culturally and at times, politically, liberal.
That you voted for Bush, and dare to criticise Obama on your blog despite voting for him is beyond the pale.
I'll never forget Jane Hamsher's expression when you told her you were not on board with Bush = war criminal. Her gape was matched by her look of incomprehensibility, as if she had been speaking to an intelligent person a second ago, who suddenly said she believed Elvis was alive, living in Peoria, and furthermore, you had sex with him last week.
Priceless.
Cheers,
Victoria
How many posts before I was banned do you think?"
Classic case of projection.
If only they knew who has been tolerated here for years...
Oh, thanks for the link to the "Survivors of the Purple Tunnel of Doom", Ophir!
I haven't seen ONE single in-depth investigative story about these people, who are majorly pissed off, some of them at Obama himself.
And that may be why we haven't seen any coverage...
"who suddenly said she believed Elvis was alive, living in Peoria, and furthermore, you had sex with him last week."
Good one Vbspurs!
Maybe they should hire Ellen DeGeneres as a consultant.
Ann Althouse said...
"Here's a comment someone wrote over there: 'If I was to go to her wonderful blog to post something supporting a liberal point of view. How long would it remain? Would it be subject to friendly respectful debate? How many posts before I was banned do you think?'"
Projection. No one has ever been banned here for having a liberal point of view, although some have been banned for being assholes. As for friendly debate - well, politics is a contact sport, and beyond that, it seems to me that it's usually the liberal side that begins any incivility here, hurling around insults and the like. Maybe it's because they're used to a world where calling people war criminals and evil rethuglicans is seen as civil debate.
So I wonder if anyone would actually try it?
Posting here, I mean.
I thought I'd go there and suggest it but one must register to post, unlike here where you don't have to register to post.
What's your problem with popsicles?
(I sound like my father).
Let's rig up the plethysmograph.
If lefties feel threatened by Althouse, of all people, can there be any doubt that they'll move heaven and earth to have the so called Fairness Doctrine enacted?
"Here's a comment someone wrote over there: 'If I was to go to her wonderful blog to post something supporting a liberal point of view. How long would it remain? Would it be subject to friendly respectful debate? How many posts before I was banned do you think?'"
Well they could, you know, POST something here and see what happens. Easier to be outraged by their strawman I suppose.
jeff: "Well they could, you know, POST something here and see what happens. Easier to be outraged by their strawman I suppose."
Now THAT is FUNNY.
Any contrary postings here are always met with the standard conservative pack mentality of the regulars.
95% of the people who post here regularly are conservatives, hate Obama and hate anything with which they don't agree or already believe to be so.
Just look at the current comments here: Just the usual sycophants defending the Queen.
Michael blathered: "Any contrary postings here are always met with the standard conservative pack mentality of the regulars."
But that wasn't the question, was it? The question wasn't whether liberal idiocy would get exposed for what it is by the commenters here (of course it will); it was whether a someone would be banned for posting liberal comments. The mere fact that you're still here spouting your nonsense answers that question.
They aren't banned by the host. Don't be an idiot. Can't stand criticism? Try posting something thoughtful like Eli Blake, Beth from NOLA, etc, instead of a trolling gutter snipe.
Defense-Fool: This is exactly what I responded to:
jeff: "Well they could, you know, POST something here and see what happens. Easier to be outraged by their strawman I suppose."
*It would be rather foolish to "ban" someone from a blog site run by a law professor...wouldn't you say?
Keep sucking up. Ann might even give you a cookie.
Stevie: "trolling gutter snipe"??
Suck my dick.
The sad thing is, George Soros spent a lot of money setting up this organization to do exactly this kind of uproarious, knee-slapping, mindless bullshit.
Some paid activist spent his day writing a column attacking Ann Althouse instead of doing something constructive with his life.
It's the job of the people at Media Matters to act as megaphones for the Democratic Party while they attack conservative writers and bloggers. In addition, Media Matters acts to enforce Party Orthodoxy. Think of it this way: they sort of act as the Democratic Party's version of the Spanish Inquisition. They have become one of the most politically corrosive, reactionary, and angry forces in American politics today, which is what the Democrats like.
Of course, the Mainstream Media calls them a "watchdog" group.
The problem with Media Matters is that their schtick gets to a point such as this, where they waste huge bandwidth space by publishing their own Ethica Nichomachaea against Ann that they don't realize that they've become an angry parody of a pressure/hate group.
Ann is a one blogger from Wisconsin. Yet an entire orgnization goes ballistic on her for a mild critique of the Dear Leader as if Althouse is a latter day Don Imus, caught blogging about a "nappy headed" colleague.
Two words: "Jesus wept."
"Stevie: "trolling gutter snipe"??
Suck my dick."
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That is some funny shit. To support a comment that liberals are instantly banned the intellectually deficient posts. Again. And again. And to support his own comment that liberals are met with derision, he posts "suck my dick" as a rejoinder. Once again, self refuting without a trace of self irony. Truly impressive, and makes me think we have a conservative Moby on our hands.
I had no idea this was a conservative blog.
Honestly, comments like Michael's make me think that to go as far Left as some folks you have to get whacked upside the head with a mallet.
I get really, really tired of the Far Left ('Progressives') calling anyone even marginally to their right as conservatives or Republicans or neocons. I'm a philosophical anarchist, practical libertarian who calls BS when he smells it.
MM is premium grade BS. (As are Michael's posts, which are still standing. Try that at any given Leftie site.)
(Oh. And about that "sucking" remark -- does the offer come with a magnifying glass to make the activity possible? I mean, given the size of the b*lls you've displayed here we must be talking microscopic equipment.)
Palladian said..."Just think about it Althouse: that lame, laughable post about you probably cost George Soros at least a thousand dollars!"
You got quoted on Instapundit.
But then to say Borders, "which is in the amidst of an economic free-fall by the way," Ha ha ha, in the amidst.
I suppose you Althouse illiterates have never heard of "gorillas in the amidst," hmmm?
Ignoramuses.
"I suppose you Althouse illiterates have never heard of "gorillas in the amidst," hmmm?"
I think Jeff Foxworth has heard of it.
Probably projection.
But certainly gross ignorance.
prominent conservative blogger
They wont give up on that will they.
She's a treasure for the funny bone...latest bout of comic relief...the side-splitting headline...
I think he's confusing Ann with Maxine.
He's trying too hard to get the rest of the girls in his group to laugh at the one girl who doesn't think his boyfriend is "Like, Oh my God sooooooooo incredible and stuff and junk. He's soooooo popular and stuff. OMG, like what's her problem? We don't like her do we girls? OMG, like Ann Althouse is soo dead to me."
Michael bleated:
"Defense-Fool:"
Nice one! Now you can go to the second grade.
"This is exactly what I responded to:
jeff: "Well they could, you know, POST something here and see what happens."
As was perfectly obvious from the context, the "see what happens" clearly meant "see whether they get banned or not." Are you always this slow?
"Keep sucking up. Ann might even give you a cookie."
You've got me pegged. Althouse suck-up all over. I mean, just count the number of comments I've posted here! It takes contractor-grade stupid to get me to respond to someone on a blog--congrats on clearing the bar. FYI, I normally scroll right by your comments without a second glance; that's how worthless your contributions are. I read your comment tonight purely by accident.
Well, in fairness, Michael has been banned. He's just too stupid to realize it.
Suck my dick.
Well that's not my thing but if you provide the magnifying glass, I could see if I'm interested.
Otherwise, I could just assume from your posts that you are small and limp, unattractive to men who like men and women who like men.
The only "threat" I've ever felt here at Althouse is with my poor spelling and grammer being ruthlessly pointed out (Did I spell ruthlessly right?)
The only ignorant person is the idiot that was confounded by a primarily picture post. Yeah, Professor Althouse noted that newspapers, magazines, and book publishers geared up for a historic inauguration press run. She's the one that went to the bookstore.
There, she noted that the demand for print media wasn't there despite Obama's "sky-high" approval ratings. Her theory for this lack of demand was due to online political content, which lowered the demand for dead tree print.
What's REALLY funny is that the original artical at Media Matters only has 15 comments... while this thread is now well over 60.
Dear Jebus, and these people believe themselves to be the cultural and intellectual "vanguard" in this country. I feel so much better about myself after reading all that drivel over there. So much so, that I think I will start writing a book.
mydismalswamp,
you spelled ruthlessly right but you misspelled grammar.
Good points though. Who cares about a little misspelling if your point is true.
But Ann, you also didn't mention the decline in polar bears, and the dangers to our satellites from an extremely active solar cycle, and the chance of the Yellowstone supervolcano exploding! How could you possibly ignore these vital topics?
I'm shocked, shocked! ;)
Next stop - Countdown with Kieth Olberloon.
"Ann Althouse - the worst person in the world"
They also claim that "She ignores the record-breaking number of people who turned out in D.C. for the inauguration."
It wasn't record setting. There were roughly 800,000 actually in attendance according to experts on counting crowd sizes, that's less than LBJ's numbers 44 years ago.
They then say "She ignores the nearly 40 million people who watched the swearing-in on TV."
Which is still less than watched Reagan in 1981.
Some phenomenon.
Swamp, you also misspelt "article."
Shape up!
Way to go Professor!! I read your original post and didn't read it as a slight on Obama at all, more like a statement on the dubious future of the old-fashioned bookstore.
I wouldn't call you conservative either; more like, "liberal-minded" in the best, old-fashioned sense of someone with an open and inquiring mind. Which is why I, definitely a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy (maybe not so vast anymore??), regularly stop by.
Hey, Boehlert probably got a lot of hits he wouldn't have otherwise. Too bad most of them left muttering, "What drivel!"
Now someone over there is accusing our host of sockpuppeting the comments over there that aren't anti-Althouse. Bizarre. They're really in their own little world.
LOL, someone there wrote: "It looks weird, and 'fishy' if you have one glowing comment after another about yourself. Something is rotten and Denmark, and I'm sure all of the positive comments came from the same IP address, I just can't prove that right now, but one has to imagine that you're the one writing all of these."
Something is rotten and Denmark... It's one thing to be rotten, but rotten and Denmark... that's... well, I don't know what the hell that is.
Who knew Media Matters was that dumb?
Soros just can't get high-quality help, it would seem.
"Who knew Media Matters was that dumb?"
Yo, right here. (raising hand)
See, I told you.
Rotten and Denmark. How do you make that error?
Perhaps the writer is using voice-to-text technology instead of hitting a keyboard.
I posted a few comments there under "schizuki" (Dave S. was taken). I'm having great fun.
You have to think "Denmark" is an adjective. Like you'd say: "It's so Denmark in here."
Thanks, Dave.
Uh, I don't see your point at all, Ann. Your headline on the post they take issue with is: "Despite shrines to Obama, the bookstore was nearly deserted."
Now, I just brushed up on the meaning of "despite," to be sure. Combining your title with your snarky use of "shrines" to describe tables piled with Obama books (what, no incense?), your meaning seems to be an attack on Obama. That's a pretty reasonable conclusion, actually.
Now, maybe you meant "hey people aren't using bookstores anymore." So why the anti-Obama snark? (My guess is chum for your right wing base.)
But that wasn't obvious from your post. So, the fault seems to be with your own poorly written post. If you don't want to be criticized for things you don't think you said, you could try writing more clearly.
Just a friendly suggestion.
Just a friendly suggestion.
Speaking of snark...
I think it's those Globish speakers.
Pull ze stuff off ze shelves zat ees rotten an denmark it, so we weel know to frow eet out!
Alpha, if you had trouble reading it, it is your own blindness. It's quite obvious that I'm observing that the bookstore is deserted and then that the big Obama displays aren't bringing people in. I'm not saying that the displays are driving people out. To think that you have to not know what "despite" means.
And not know what Madison, Wisconsin is.
Oui. You can take Alfie Fiberal's comments an' denmark ze rotten parts like ze editeur. You weel haf vewy leettle left.
Well, for Pete's sake, I try to move on and there it is on Crooks and Liars, too.
Would it [a liberal's post here] be subject to friendly respectful debate?
No. The content of the message would be ignored in lieu of insults and name-calling.
Just proves that more than one blogger is denser than depleted uranium, Alph.
Blech. I'm not linking to him too. The nit wit.
Who knew 5:30 was dinnertime? Where do these people live? 5:30 is a prime shopping time -- on your way home from work.
Anyway, Madison is in Dane County, where things are rotten and Danish.
I mean, really, the post only makes sense if you take, as a give, Obama's popularity. Then, the Prof. says despite the popularity, the store is deserted.
Tell me, how many lit-crit classes do you have to take to misunderstand something so simple?
"as a given" that should say.
I guess I'm Denmark, now. Or something.
Uh-huh. Ri-i-i-ght.
So, "shrine" is not a slam on Obama popularity?
I like Media Matters. They calmly cite media/rightist hyperbole and lies and introduce facts.
Both media and rightists (ok, redundant again) flip out and call fact-checking wild-eyed character assassination.
Says a lot, actually, when people are threatened by facts.
Wait, maybe our host is Denmark. Think about it: a mainland peninsula (our host) surrounded by lots of islands (commenters) of various sizes (like each commenter's varying quantity and quality of comments).
It's a new blogging paradigm.
If the mistake is that Eric of MM didn't read past the headline, well, then he's an even bigger idiot.
Alpha, could you have written a better headline that expressed the two ideas (shrine, no shoppers) while still keeping it short?
I might have written "What if you erected a shrine to Obama and nobody showed up."
More snark than the original.
If I saw a bunch of "Jurassic Park" books and videos with "Andromeda Strain," "Sphere," etc. at a bookstore I'd be likely to call it a Michael Crichton shrine, as a funny way of saying "display."
Or a nerd shrine, even.
Snark? Or, perhaps, more of a sense of fun than Soros's paid pals?
Some things are just too painful.
Althouse should have had Chip animate a crowd swarming over the Obama books like so many cockroaches.
Of course that would have spoiled her point, but then again, maybe not.
might have written "What if you erected a shrine to Obama and nobody showed up."
But even then, the main point of the post would have been the bookstore, empty of customers.
Because just about the only ones who have an appetite for printed, topical political matter, even if it's stuff they agree with, would be cockroaches. There's all that glue to eat! You won't get that nutritional value from a flat screen.
"No. The content of the message would be ignored in lieu of insults and name-calling."
Oh please. Make a coherent argument, stop moving goalposts around and refrain from insulting anyone.
"So, "shrine" is not a slam on Obama popularity? "
Dude. It WAS a shrine to Obama. Look at the pictures.
"I like Media Matters. They calmly cite media/rightist hyperbole and lies and introduce facts.
Both media and rightists (ok, redundant again) flip out and call fact-checking wild-eyed character assassination.
Says a lot, actually, when people are threatened by facts."
So many things wrong there. Except the last sentence. True dat. Why ARE you so threatened by facts?
Alpha, could you have written a better headline that expressed the two ideas (shrine, no shoppers) while still keeping it short?
Yes.
But I think the headline, as written, sums up what Ann meant, which is to knock Obama. Gotta toss that red meat out to the right wing. Without them, no traffic.
Dude, she could post "Obama had a nice tie on today" and you'd say she was sarcastic.
"Shrine" is just poking fun at the store's display. Embarrassing enthusiasm... and not too literary. The books are obviously mainly junk. It's not why I go to a bookstore. It's not the ambience I want. But I think it's pleasing to most Madisonians... who used to flock to this bookstore, as the post indicates.
To quote Bugs Bunny, a philosopher and thinker as brilliant as Mr. Boehlert himself:
“What a maroon.”
AL, news flash, not everyone processes everything they see, read or hear through an Obama filter.
I believe the chain bookstores are in trouble because they've narrowed their focused to coffee table glossies, pop culture and best sellers.
Borders is useless if you read eclectically, or a given subject deeply. So many of us go elsewhere, I prefer used and collector book shops. Nothing is more enjoyable than discovering an unexpected book among the stacks of a good used bookstore and discussing books with knowledgeable staff.
Neither experience can be had at Borders or any of the chains, despite Obama's popularity.
Dude. It WAS a shrine to Obama. Look at the pictures.
No, dude. It was a shrine to sales, if a shrine to anything.
I go into bookstores and often see them piled up with books related to hot-selling topics. So what? Is that some reflection on those topics?
And do people driving by outside know what books are piled up on the tables and enter the store to mass around the table?
Why ARE you so threatened by facts?
That's rich. I've written hundreds of posts here with facts and links to my sources of information and inviting similar posts or reasoned responses, only to be told to fuck off, drop dead, suck something, adult dialog like that. That typical staple of conservative dialog is not "fact".
There is a minority of conservatives here who don't deal that way, to their credit.
Whatever.
"Without them, no traffic...."
The notion that I'm grasping for traffic here is absurd. Look at my posts! How can you characterize what I'm doing that way? It doesn't fit the facts. How do you explain all the pro-Obama stuff I've done (including voting for him)?
I go into bookstores and often see them piled up with books related to hot-selling topics. So what? Is that some reflection on those topics?
No. That's the whole point! Obama's a "hot-selling topic," especially now and especially in Madison, and yet the store was e m p t y. Because chain bookstores are in trouble for a number of reasons.
Lord. Ride that horse into the ground. Try arguing your point in good faith sometime. See what happenes. Compare and contrast a right wing doing just that on a lefty site.
BJM:
AL, news flash, not everyone processes everything they see, read or hear through an Obama filter.
Unless, maybe unless "Obama" is in the headline?
Such as "Despite shrines to Obama, the bookstore was nearly deserted."
I blame Instapundit Glenn. (Reynolds?) He has been a bad influence on Ann and she is very concerned with pleasing him. He sends traffic over.
--- ... --- --- ..
Ann, maybe it's not readily apparent but "shrine to Obama" is evocative of various conservative habits of trying to ridicule Obama, such as "The Savior," "The Great One," yadda, yadda.
And, in that light, the whole piece follows the genre.
(Whoa. That's some kid of deja vu all of a sudden!)
Try arguing your point in good faith sometime.
Oh for Pete's sake! I did! So, you twist what I say, I try to correct the record and then you're accusing me of dishonesty!
Me: Nice blue sky today:
Jeff: The sky is brown and you know it.
Me: Well, look, it's clearly blue as it so often is.
Jeff: You're dishonest.
Whatever.
I did think the MM piece was a bit harsh and personal. Barack probably wouldn't approve.
And neither would President Obama.
It takes contractor-grade stupid ...
I like it.
Maybe people weren't in the book store was because of the shrines to Obama.;-) Who am I kidding.
Someone should set up two book stores in a lefty enclave. One would have pro-Obama, pro-democrat musings. The other one with anti-Bush, Anti-American one's and see which one attracts the most flies.
zefal, you'd need a "control" store in-between with "neutral," non-political displays (local history, the latest in gourmet cooking, etc.).
Ann, maybe it's not readily apparent but "shrine to Obama" is evocative of various conservative habits of trying to ridicule Obama, such as "The Savior," "The Great One," yadda, yadda.
Or maybe you're overreacting just a tad. After years of Bushitler it's uncool to use the word shrine and Obama in the same sentence? Ha.
AL said:BJM:
AL, news flash, not everyone processes everything they see, read or hear through an Obama filter.
Unless, maybe unless "Obama" is in the headline?
Um, no, I interpreted the post as it was intended, as a comment on the state of chain bookstores.
Obama was tangential to Althouse's point; she employed what is commonly known as a writer's hook.
By the by, as a stickler for facts perhaps you care to elucidate on Boehlert's erroneous statement:
She ignores the record-breaking number of people who turned out in D.C. for the inauguration.
See, on the original post? I almost left a comment that said,
"Or maybe it's because of the shrine?"
Then I realized that that would be stupid, because Ann is in Madison, Wisconsin.
Now I regret not saying it, because maybe some of the people who don't know the meaning of "despite" could have actually figured out Ann wasn't blaming Obama.
That people are taking the slightly irreverent reference to a "shrine" as reason to take offense actually reinforces the claim that there's an Orthodox Obama Cult, complete with self-appointed inquisitors seeking out any sign of heresy to attack.
Media Matters guy said: "She ignores Obama's sky-high approval ratings."
Almost all the polls, including the Gallup poll linked by the MM guy, are inflating Obama's approval ratings by polling all adults, rather than screening for registered voters.
Today Rasmussen's daily tracker (which unlike Gallup, screens for registered voters) has Obama at 60%.
And Rasmussen has a better record than Gallup. For example, Gallup's final pre-election poll had Obama +11. Rasmussen nailed it at Obama +6.
Chuck Todd let it slip once, that MSNBC has a ban on mentioning Rasmussen's polling.
I see.
So what Althouse needed to write was, "Despite his SKY HIGH approval ratings, the ENTIRELY DESERVED shrine to Obama failed to attract the ENTIRELY UNWORTHY citizens of Madison."
That would've reflected a fair appraisal of Obama's glorious appearl.
I'm sure all of the positive comments came from the same IP address, I just can't prove that right now, but one has to imagine that you're the one writing all of these.
It's strange that Media Matters assumes a bunch (4 or 5?) of positive comments are sock puppetry. I wonder if they aren't the ones who generally do most of the comments on their own blogs.
I did post the URL for this discussion over there yesterday. Has anyone from Media Matters commented over here? Kind of odd.
As much as AL deserves abuse, the most he ever gets here is mild dis-Dane.
blake, nicely done.
Alpha, do you and Media Matters not get kidding?
And Alpha, your representation of yourself is quite disarming. Almost Beta.
From my catbird seat, this is what I usual observe:
Alpha: Nice blue torture today:
Others: We're talking about the weather.
Alpha: Oh sure, pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.
Others: WTF?
Alpha: "Ann, maybe it's not readily apparent but "shrine to Obama" is evocative of various conservative habits of trying to ridicule Obama, such as "The Savior," "The Great One," yadda, yadda."
What is astoundingly not apparent to *you* is that there is a difference between ridiculing Obama and ridiculing the fawning over Obama.
The Media Matters piece and the subsequent comments are an object lesson illustrating that 1) idiocy transcends political affiliation, and 2) Althouse's pragmatism defies simple left-right categorization.
"Oh for Pete's sake! I did! So, you twist what I say, I try to correct the record and then you're accusing me of dishonesty!
Me: Nice blue sky today:
Jeff: The sky is brown and you know it.
Me: Well, look, it's clearly blue as it so often is.
Jeff: You're dishonest. "
BIGALGORESIGH
I am refering to your 'work' as a whole, not one conversation.
Me: Nice blue sky today:
Jeff: Uh, its 2 in the morning, its dark out and it rained all day.
Me: Well, look, it's clearly blue in China.
Jeff: Ah, you didnt specify China.
Me: Bush is a idiot.
The lameness continues. They still say any comments not perfectly in-line with their thinking MUST be from our host, because--well, just because, I guess.
It's truly insane that so many liberal sites waste their time trying to critique/attack Althouse when there are such bigger and truer conservative foes for them to pick fights with. They have no idea what goes on here.
The premise to be checked here is that conservatism is the Left's "real" enemy. I say that the evidence indicates that the Left does not seem to think so.
Rather, it is the threat of independent thinking among those they see as "their own", which is what they really fear. AA is an academic and an intellectual, a constituency the Left sees as its home base -- they don't want *any* independent minds in there. The same pattern can be seen elsewhere in the blogosphere with Jeff Goldstein.
The funny thing is that Althouse doesn't seem all that far off the mainstream (to me, at least), and yet still gets enough of this kind of flak to dedicate a tag to it. This indicates to me that the mere *perception* of potential independent thinking among those they take for granted as "theirs" is enough to spark it. Think for yourself and show it to the world even once, and you are marked for life.
It reminds me of the part of "1984" where Winston Smith expects a rather intelligent, active-minded colleague to disappear because he is "too bright" despite being all gung-ho for Ingsoc and Big Brother. Sooner or later, such minds notice things, ask inconvenient questions, think...
Hmmm. Apparently they "KNOW" that opposing viewpoints on their little site is actually Althouse. All while admitting they can't prove it. Possibly even believe hdhouse is also Althouse. This magnolialover guy is baffled that anyone might possibly disagree with him and is in some sort of denial. Fascinating.
Well, that's exceedingly lame.
Unless they're positing that Althouse--excuse me, Criminal Mastermind Althouse! has rerouted her comments through multiple proxy servers in order to elude detection!
Her willingness to entertain conservative ideas distinguishes Prof. A from other moderate/liberals. This confuses true believers, who think only "reich-wingers" can quote Rush Limbaugh without typing gagging sounds.
The thing is, it wasn't just "a bunch of magazines," it was all the magazines, and all the books stacked as if a shrine had been constructed and as if no other books on any other subject were marketable at that moment.
Consider how many people borke their usual habit and actually bought copies of newspapers the day after the election, just to have a souvenir. Consider that both Obama's books have been best sellers for a long time now.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say people are interested in this whole "Obama Inauguration" meme right now.
I noticed the same thing the first time men landed on the moon. Bookstores had displays of magazines, instabooks, and books on space exploration. And even last month, bookstores contained shrines to "Christmas," and even "Chanukah" as if no books on any other subject were marketable at that moment. (Speaking of seasonable topics: Wasn't there a display of Valentines Day material? Perhaps a stack of bodice rippers somewhere?)
But I digress. Maybe 5:30 pm on a January Friday is just not prime book browsing time in Madison. When I was in Chicago after Christmas, during the day at least, both the Loop Borders and the Water Tower Borders were jam packed, with checkout lines 15 deep. After a hard week of classes, students want to kick back, and perhaps pregame for going out that night. An evening with a brand new book is probably a minority choice.
Or, perhaps shoppers were turned off by the displays of Grandma's Dead: Breaking Bad News With Baby Animals that were amply stocked at both Borders' checkouts:
http://breakingbadnewswithbabyanimals.tumblr.com/
Post a Comment