(Enlarge to read all the signs.)
By the way, you know that threat — "A Communication from Operation:Countertroll to Ann Althouse and 'Meade'" — that we've been talking about for the last few days? It claimed there was a conspiracy of Madison protesters — "We all know each other" — who had "citizen-BANNED" us from various restaurants and shops in town. I won't name the places in this post, but they are named in the threatening screed. Yesterday, Meade and I went around to most of the named places. (This was Meade's idea.) We had copies of the screed to give to the manager/owner of each place, and we discussed the situation. Meade directly asked them if we were welcome, and, as you might imagine, they all said we were. In fact, they didn't like seeing the names of their places used in such an ugly context, and they weren't happy with the claim, made in the screed, that they had workers who would discriminate against their customers based on politics.
Posts
125 comments:
My God, what are you doing posting! You're on in 1! Ed Morrissey just cut to commercials, but I can still hear him. :P
"And now the challenge in the next second, is for her to describe the letter she got without a seven-second delay".
Hehehe.
But what did these store managers say about you AFTER you left and were out of ear shot?
They have a sign supporting everyone but the taxpayers. I suppose they are afraid of having their windows smashed.
Ann just an aside, I would not eat in one of those places if you and your husband could not see the food being prepared.
I see you've got your fist out, say your piece and get out.
Guess I get the gist of it, but, it's alright.
Sorry that you feel that way, the only thing there is to say:
Every silver lining's got a touch of grey.
I will get by, I will get by, I will get by, by--I will survive.
Touch of Grey Grateful Dead
___________________
wv = "fatica" Name of infamous California prison guard riot set in 2012.
Ann just an aside, I would not eat in one of those places if you and your husband could not see the food being prepared.
My very thoughts as well.
I will not patronize any place in Wisconsin that has a fist in the window, or solidarity sticker
Resist the fist!
Just say no to political fisting!
Someone once described Ann Coulter as the person who'd eaten the most liberal waiter spit on the planet.
Just saying.
I wouldn't eat in any place that looked like that because I would assume that they did not have a professional (i.e. - clean) kitchen. Ten years in food service, I learned what to avoid....
-XC
Of course they're going to tell you you're welcome. How can they F___ YOU UP if you never come in?
I would definitely stay away from Noodles for a while.
I generally avoid patronizing any business that assaults me with their politics, whether I agree with the politics or not. It seems like a good indicator of bad business sense.
"We support working families"?????
Uh no. I do NOT support working families, and I'll take my business elsewhere thank you very much!
I've already taken my business elsewhere a couple of times when I've seen pro-union signs in windows, especially on State Street.
Madison is good at making people feel unwelcome. I grew up here during the antiwar protests and experienced the union organizing during the 70s: my family was pretty activist back then (and my 85-year-old mother says she wishes she could march with the unions again these days). It made me dislike Mad City intensely. I left for 20 years and came back a few years ago, and I have to say I can't wait to get out for good.
My boyfriend, who is a lifelong Democrat from the Deep South, says he might have to vote for a Republican for the first time in his life if we stay. Anyone know of a good job for a Ph.D. in engineering, especially water-resource computer modeling, that's far away from Madison, Wisconsin?
There's a snack bar in the basement of one of the buildings of the school where I teach that features one – and only one – specialty burger, the "OBAMA BURGER", which appeared shortly before the 2008 election. I don't know what's in it, because I almost never visit this snack bar, but one of my students said it was "soggy".
Palladian, there's a diner I once went to that had a huge-ass poster (with encircling wreath...an unintentional macabre touch) of Obama shortly after the 2008 elections.
When I questioned the cashier, she sheepishly said, well, the owner wanted to be relevant.
Took me 3 years to return. No more poster.
All those signs in the window are a complete turn off for me for patronizing the place.
Even if I agreed with the signs, I don't want to go out to eat and have politics shoved in my face. I wouldn't enter a restaurant that was promoting politics over its cuisine.
You are a restaurant. Serve food: and shut up about your politics.
Amazing how having a Government job = being a working family these days.
What about non-Government people (the ones who pay ALL the bills) with jobs? Are they non-working families?
And as for "working", the Teachers and the Dem Senators are the ones who ditched work, not the Tea Partiers or the Repubs.
Get some reality.
As always, you acted in a civilized manner in confronting the situation.
And I'm sure Shankman is absolutely distraught that his comrades in Solidarity would rather make a profit than turn you away.
He must know how Shylock felt ("how sharper than a serpent's tooth...).
Capitalism is like payback.
A "cards and gifts" shop called "Savoir Faire?" If its wares are anything like what I've seen in other such shops--scented candles and tchotchkes--then the name is completely ironic.
Probably unintentionally, though.
DBQ wrote:
You are a restaurant. Serve food: and shut up about your politics.
It's not just THEIR politics. Implicit in the posters is that people with my kind of politics are hated by them.
That is the problem.
If they "support working families" does this mean that the restaurant is giving free food to 'working families'? Discounts? Supporting them by paying their utility bills? Helping with the rent?
What if you are a working person who is single and childless? No support for you!!
Exactly how are they providing support?
We recently visited tailor. He's Indian (dot,not feather) and has two pictures of him (the tailor) with GW Bush. Have to admit I liked it because I live in a very liberal city.
Name one fascist asshole who didn't claim to "support working families."
"Familes" (see photo) sounds like a word verification.
"Uh no. I do NOT support working families, and I'll take my business elsewhere thank you very much!"
The "working families" ploy is a particularly stupid political trick, when a party co-opts a general category of people who are the supposed beneficiaries of their political policies. Then if you oppose the specific policies of that party, the duller supporters can shriek: "YOU HATE WORKING FAMILIES!" or "YOU HATE THE ENVIRONMENT!" or "YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE!"
No darling, I happen to think that "working families" (does that mean the baby is pulling a shift at the mill and the dog works evenings running on the turn-spit at the Lord's manor?) are being royally fucked by public union members. But you knew that. You're just playing games.
And garage, you've been particularly sour and foul recently (It's hard to detect unless you've been around here a long time like I have. He's normally just petulant and nasty). Maybe you need to, I don't know, go on a meditation retreat or something...
DBQ wrote:
If they "support working families" does this mean that the restaurant is giving free food to 'working families'? Discounts? Supporting them by paying their utility bills? Helping with the rent?
Actually, this is where I admit that in England we actually walk the walk about that. It's a social democracy that takes its philosophy seriously -- that's why when you buy a ticket at a cinema, you can take advantage of concessions.
'Concessions' is not popcorn and pop, but discounts -- such as for the unemployed...
Palladian said...And garage, you've been particularly sour and foul recently (It's hard to detect unless you've been around here a long time like I have.
I'll vouch for garage. We spoke on the phone recently. He's OK, he just hates his role here.
"Palladian, there's a diner I once went to that had a huge-ass poster (with encircling wreath...an unintentional macabre touch) of Obama shortly after the 2008 elections.
When I questioned the cashier, she sheepishly said, well, the owner wanted to be relevant.
Took me 3 years to return. No more poster."
There's a deli down the street from me that's run by Arabs who taped a color picture of Obama onto the cigarette rack (!) behind the counter shortly after the election in 2008, right between American Spirits and Kools. It's gone now.
"I'll vouch for garage. We spoke on the phone recently. He's OK, he just hates his role here."
Like community theater, his role is completely voluntary.
I've traded email with garage and he seems like a perfectly nice fellow, which is why his persona here sometimes worries me.
STO THE WA!
Behind the Spirits and Kools, oh sweet irony, Palladian! I suppose they kept a picture of Michelle behind the Malt liquor.
"..Yesterday, Meade and I went around to most of the named places. (This was Meade's idea.) We had copies of the screed to give to the manager/owner of each place, and we discussed the situation. .."
Before this the probably couldn't have put your name ,your face, together with the current hubbub. Now they can.
Fantastic way to handle this, Ann & Meade!
And may I also say how happy I am for the two of you that you found each other! :)
I for one don't support working families. By definition they support themselves. If they need my support they aren't working enough.
I must disagree about politics and business'. My dream, still, is to open a bar, and this is no joke, near Madison called:
William F. Buckley Jr.'s P and R Bar: A Downscale Wino Establishment.
"P and R" stands for politics and religion. The "downscale" and "wino" are to prevent any notions of elitism from infiltrating the joint, no matter how upscale the clientelle Althouse would surely send after some freeish libations and laughs.
I just need $20000 (or so) to get started.
If they were honest, the signs would say "I Support Working Families to the Bone."
Palladian wrote:
I've traded email with garage and he seems like a perfectly nice fellow, which is why his persona here sometimes worries me
If I may speak above his head, Garage may be like many people who are adversarial. It's not that they disagree with a given topic, it's just that they find a lack of balance irritating. Even without wanting to, their personality demands they take the opposite side to rectify the balance.
I'm actually a bit like that. I have Right-wing friends who suspect I'm a Rockefeller Republican (!).
@chickelit,
famile: the distance Kim Kardashian can advance her career on a column-inch of coverage at TMZ.
OH FORT! I can't contribute ducats, but I'll bring my mouth and eat you out when you open! (Wait, what)
I support working parents. I don't think children should have to work, even if they get to work alongside their parents.
I definitely wouldn't want to patronize a place that wanted to overturn child labor laws.
Why does Savoir Faire want to return us to the days of soot covered chimney sweeping eight year olds?! Is this something unions want too? So as to boost their membership with mandatory dues from poor children who spend all their days gluing labels on jars of blacking?
They have a sign supporting everyone but the taxpayers. I suppose they are afraid of having their windows smashed.
Or, as with Kent State, they are worried about being drug out into the street and beaten.
Where is the leadership in the Democrat party? I have not heard of one stepping up and denouncing these brownshirt tactics.
Plus, isn't it Jeremy who keeps telling us that it was unions who helped families not work as much, giving us weekends, 8 hour days, public parks, summer concerts, a daily allowance, free candy on fridays, bi-monthly trips to the coast, and so on?
I support leisure loving families who know how to indulge a good sabbath rest. Savoir Faire wants them to keep working twenty-nine hours a day down at the mill, and pay the mill owner for permission to come to work.
"He must know how Shylock felt ("how sharper than a serpent's tooth...)."
That was Lear !
Having five children, I know that line well.
It seems really stupid to advertise your politics at your business. You have just turned away a large share of potential customers. Of course, lefties don't know much about business or earning a living.
I hate to break it to you Anne, but I bet that 99% of the people who live in Madison have never heard of you.
Horatius at the Bridge, by Thomas Macaulay
LARS Porsena of Clusium
By the Nine Gods he swore
That the great house of Tarquin
Should suffer wrong no more.
By the Nine Gods he swore it,
And named a trysting day,
And bade his messengers ride forth,
East and west and south and north,
To summon his array.
.....
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
‘To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods...
http://www.englishverse.com/poems/horatius
Ann & Meade, you've been facing some fearful odds -- not looking death in the face during battle, as in the epic poem above, but being threatened, intimidated, and vastly outnumbered -- and yet you are "holding the bridge" for freedom and true civility.
Thanks.
On behalf of the Democratic party, I hearby denounce all brownshirt tactics like throwing baseballs on people's lawns.
M.E. said...
Horatius at the Bridge, by Thomas Macaulay
One of my favorites.
they all said we were. In fact, they didn't like seeing the names of their places used in such an ugly context, and they weren't happy with the claim, made in the screed, that they had workers who would discriminate against their customers based on politics.
So I'm sure each business promptly made a sign (and prominently posted it) that stated:
We serve all customers, regardless of their stance on the Budget Repair bill
vbspurs said...
Behind the Spirits and Kools, oh sweet irony, Palladian! I suppose they kept a picture of Michelle behind the Malt liquor.
God, I'm so old I remember Colt .45 when it was what white guys drank.
(they had some very cool radio spots back then)
OH FORT! I can't contribute ducats, but I'll bring my mouth and eat you out when you open! (Wait, what)
Somehow, I have a feeling this is where The Blonde is getting ready to say, "That's more than I need to know".
Michael K said...
"He must know how Shylock felt ("how sharper than a serpent's tooth...)."
That was Lear !
Thought it came after, "O! My daughter! O! My ducats!".
Considering it's almost a half century since I read it (Merchant), I'm glad I can still remember Shylock
We support working families
What the hell does that mean anyway. I'm guessing a family like mine with both husband and wife working, and, in fact, wife running small business and working long hours every day, but making well above the "middle class" cutoff; who are both registered Republicans; who are evangelical Christians; who did not vote for BO in '08.
I assume they wouldn't support us.
When will "progressives" get over that 18th century mindset of
us
vs
the landed gentry living extravagently off the hard work of the peons ?
I assume that banner means that Savoir Faire is run by Walker supporters.
I've been impressed by how far Ann has "outed" herself. I'm a former academic and even in my field (science) in a different Big 10 university the faculty in my department were overwhelmingly liberals and progressives. Each and every faculty meeting, recruiting dinner, and faculty mixer was laden with partisan politics. I eventually outed myself -- not the best career move, but at least I could sleep at night.
I'm wondering if Ann would be willing to post something about how she is received by her faculty colleagues. I have no idea how law professors at Madison are, although I assumed they're mostly liberals and progressives.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
I think the "SOLIDARITY SIGN" in the window was brought in by a union thug.
I'd also suspect that a lot of the protesters go to the manager and ask if they can use the bathroom, if this "State Street" is anywhere close enough to the Rotunda.
Also, my first reaction was that there were more signs in the window, than customers, inside.
garage mahal said...
"We support working families"?????
Uh no. I do NOT support working families, and I'll take my business elsewhere thank you very much!
Define "working families".
Oh, big deal.
What would you do if two aggieved, self-righteous older people walked into your place of business and asked if they were welcome to eat there?
Did any of them offer you a free meal in order to show their support? I imagine they were happy and relieved when you left.
There probably are a lot of people in Madison who would prefer that you not be in the same room or restaurant or bar with them and who are unlikely to forgive you for what you did to them.
I think this is because you made it personal when you crossed the line between blogging and journalism.
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
You did this without any pretense of journalistic distance or balance, acting solely as a self-interested, individual blogger.
Covering and recording and then attacking real people in a real life setting is very different from the casual ethos of blogging where no one really has much at stake, the style is often venomous, accusations (like who handcuffed the doors) are freely thrown about, and most communications are anonymous.
You have in fact made it personal by confusing blogging and journalism. So, of course the people to whom you did this are not likely to forgive you or to want you next to them in a restaurant or bar. Nor will those who support them or identify with them.
After all, if you were in a restaurant chowing down creamed soup and french fries, would you want me at the table next to you?
But the larger issue here is what you have done by so egregiously bringing the casual and somewhat venomous practices of blogging to personal attacks on real people who struggling for something that is very important to them.
So, they don't like you. Take responsibility and live with it.
How curious that no one outside of the conservo-sphere seems concerned about the "economic security" of the voters who supported Walker.
When everything is politicized our realm of privacy is invaded. Nowhere can we any longer be blessedly free of the politicized invasion and diminution of our own sacred inner realm. That is the true horror of what is spreading in the United States.
Oh, big deal.
What would you do if two aggrieved, self-righteous older people walked into your place of business and asked if they were welcome to eat there?
Did any of them offer you a free meal in order to show their support? I imagine they were happy and relieved when you left.
There probably are a lot of people in Madison who would prefer that you not be in the same room or restaurant or bar with them and who are unlikely to forgive you for what you did to them.
I think this is because you made it personal when you crossed the line between blogging and journalism.
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
You did this without any pretense of journalistic distance or balance, acting solely as a self-interested, individual blogger.
Covering and recording and then attacking real people in a real life setting is very different from the casual ethos of blogging where no one really has much at stake, the style is often venomous, accusations (like who handcuffed the doors) are freely thrown about, and most communications are anonymous.
You have in fact made it personal by confusing blogging and journalism. So, of course the people to whom you did this are not likely to forgive you or to want you next to them in a restaurant or bar. Nor will those who support them or identify with them.
After all, if you were in a restaurant chowing down creamed soup and french fries, would you want me at the table next to you?
But the larger issue here is what you have done by so egregiously bringing the casual and somewhat venomous practices of blogging to personal attacks on real people who struggling for something that is very important to them.
So, they don't like you. Take responsibility and live with it.
Victoria,
If I may speak above his head, Garage may be like many people who are adversarial. It's not that they disagree with a given topic, it's just that they find a lack of balance irritating. Even without wanting to, their personality demands they take the opposite side to rectify the balance.
Yeah, I do that too. I think in sailing they call the guys who hang off the opposite side of the boat when it's leaning dangerously in one direction "trimmers." I am a trimmer.
wv: psogmesi. Wow. I'd think something could be made of that, but I don't know what. Maybe it's a sub-Saharan African herb, or something.
Let me guess, Jim Shankman and his girlfriend Anna Louise Ogden-Nussbaum do not qualify as a working family. Or do they? garage do you have an answer for that?
lucid,
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
Look, if you don't want to be noticed saying stupid stuff or holding stupid signs, one path open to you is not to go out in public and do your best to be noticed. I really do not understand why anyone would make a public display of something that s/he didn't want distributed as widely as possible.
My last comment was in response to a comment that lucid subsequently deleted. Sorry.
Oh, big deal.
What would you do if two aggrieved, self-righteous older people walked into your place of business and asked if they were welcome to eat there?
Did any of them offer you a free meal in order to show their support? I imagine they were happy and relieved when you left.
There probably are a lot of people in Madison who would prefer that you not be in the same room or restaurant or bar with them and who are unlikely to forgive you for what you did to them.
I think this is because you made it personal when you crossed the line between blogging and journalism.
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
You did this without any pretense of journalistic distance or balance, acting solely as a self-interested, individual blogger.
Covering and recording and then attacking real people in a real life setting is very different from the casual ethos of blogging where no one really has much at stake, the style is often venomous, accusations (like who handcuffed the doors) are freely thrown about, and most communications are anonymous.
You have in fact made it personal by confusing blogging and journalism. So, of course the people to whom you did this are not likely to forgive you or to want you next to them in a restaurant or bar. Nor will those who support them or identify with them.
After all, if you were in a restaurant chowing down creamed soup and french fries, would you want me at the table next to you?
But the larger issue here is what you have done by so egregiously bringing the casual and somewhat venomous practices of blogging to personal attacks on real people who are struggling for something that is very important to them.
So, they don't like you. Take responsibility and live with it.
I thought king Lear was the character who said, "How sharper than a serpent's tooth [it is to have a thankless child]."
I thought I remembered Shylock saying it after Jessica split with Lorenzo and his money.
As I say, it's been almost 50 years and I'm proud I can still remember Jessica and Lorenzo.
If you and Michael are right, so be it. I will happily stand corrected.
Edutcher wrote:
God, I'm so old I remember Colt .45 when it was what white guys drank.
Now all the white guys drink Pabst Blue Ribbon, because they're hipsters.
Yes! Trimmers! Great, Michelle. :)
Oh, big deal.
What would you do if two aggrieved, self-righteous older people walked into your place of business and asked if they were welcome to eat there?
Did any of them offer you a free meal in order to show their support? I imagine they were happy and relieved when you left.
There probably are a lot of people in Madison who would prefer that you not be in the same room or restaurant or bar with them and who are unlikely to forgive you for what you did to them.
I think this is because you made it personal when you crossed the line between blogging and journalism.
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
You did this without any pretense of journalistic distance or balance, acting solely as a self-interested, individual blogger.
Covering and recording and then attacking real people in a real life setting is very different from the casual ethos of blogging where no one really has much at stake, the style is often venomous, accusations (like who handcuffed the doors) are freely thrown about, and most communications are anonymous.
You have in fact made it personal by confusing blogging and journalism. So, of course the people to whom you did this are not likely to forgive you or to want you next to them in a restaurant or bar. Nor will those who support them or identify with them.
After all, if you were in a restaurant chowing down creamed soup and french fries, would you want me at the table next to you?
But the larger issue here is what you have done by so egregiously bringing the casual and somewhat venomous practices of blogging to personal attacks on real people who are struggling for something that is very important to them.
So, they don't like you. Take responsibility and live with it.
AllenS wrote:
Let me guess, Jim Shankman and his girlfriend Anna Louise Ogden-Nussbaum do not qualify as a working family. Or do they?
Ding-ding.
Of course, you know people will say that's because they can't find work since the rich capitalist pigs are "refusing" to hire.
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
If these 'real' people don't want to be seen in their 'real' light, then they need to avoid being in public. When you go to a protest, carry signs, chant, participate in drum circles on public property.....you are fair game.
Or as Forest Gump says: Stupid is as stupid does.
Actually, if they weren't so dangerously stupid, I would feel sorry for some of these 'real' people.
Lucid wrote:
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
The light may have been unflattering, but I think that the ugliness Althouse revealed was apparent to anyone who cared enough to cover the events. Obviously, your local news outlets weren't up to it.
P.S. Obviously, your local news outlets weren't up to it.
There was that one video news outlet which someone named Chris (and madawaskan) linked to here the night of the reoccupation. I'd give them some credit too if I could remember their name.
You want laissez faire.
"lucid" wrote:
...real people who are struggling for something that is very important to them.
Funny, I didn't see any videos or photos of the Wisconsin TAXPAYERS on this blog.
Just where do these moochers think the money is coming from? How much MORE should Wisconsin TAXPAYERS fork over each month and year? Or should the budget deficit just be allowed to spiral out of control by a few billion more each year? (Much like Dear Leader and the Corrupt Congress continues to do on the Federal level, except of course they are dealing in Trillions at this point in time.)
“Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.”
What an odd comment.
I think it also may qualify as hopelessly off target.
At its best, “Althouse” is a spirited chronicle of current legal and political debate. That the left has adopted a number of laughably tone-deaf tactics to makes its argument would seem to indicate that derision is exactly the appropriate tone.
Well placed mockery is a sign of a healthy citizenry.
Cons. Cons.,
Do you think teachers, firefighters, nurses, cops, etc. DON'T pay taxes?
Surely, you're joking?
You sound confused...at best.
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
Tough shit. The First Amendment guarantees the demonstrators the right to go out in the public square and say their piece, but that doesn't shield them from other people's derision. They'll get over it. There were plenty of nasty blog comments made about the Tea Partiers but somehow all of them managed to survive.
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
Need a hug, li'l feller?
Lukedog, Are you really that stupid? In case you are, here's a primer for you:
If Working Family Smith is employed by the government, an increase of $100 in its salary causes it to pay higher taxes equal to (approximately) $100/n, where n is the total number of taxpaying households. (Variations in different households' marginal tax rates will cause corresponding variations in this figure, but not a lot in dollar terms.) If n = 100, the net increase in tax-financed payments to the Smiths is +$99.
If Working Family Jones is employed in the private sector, an increase of $100 in the Smiths' income costs it $100/n. Again, if n=100 then the net change for the Joneses is -$1.
Note that as the number of people employed by the government increases relative to the number of people employed by the private sector, the cost of a general increase in government employees' pay increases the cost to each privately employed Working Family. Keep increasing the number of Working Families employed by the state, and sit back and wait for a Tea Party to get started.
See how math works?
He's OK, he just hates his role here.
No one forces him to wear the clown shoes, do they?
Ann just an aside, I would not eat in one of those places if you and your husband could not see the food being prepared.
Now that the proprietors and waitstaff can associate your faces with your names, you might be more at risk than you were previously.
On the other hand, it might be fun to patronize some of those restaurants, video cameras in hand, and order from the menu. When they serve your food, pull out one of these and determine on camera whether one of the waitcreatures has spit in your food. If they have, call the local Board of Health and shut the bastards down.
Wouldn't work, murgatroyd666. Quite a few proteins fluoresce under UV light. The only way saliva would fluoresce conspicuously is if they spit right on top of the food and didn't mix it in.
There's a handmade sign in the window:
Savior Faire cards and gifts supports "SLOBS"
"SLOBS?"
What does this translate to?
Those business owners had NO RIGHT to be upset! Their businesses and their reputations belong to the PEOPLE, dammit!
ATTICA! ATTICA!
"SLOBS?"
What does this translate to?
Dunno, but in my world SLOBS over BLISS
SL = Sell Limit and BS = Buy Stop
BL = Buy Limit SS = Sell Stop
An easy mantra to remember when to place such orders.
One set is above (market price) and the other is below.
You're welcome.
Wouldn't work, murgatroyd666. Quite a few proteins fluoresce under UV light. The only way saliva would fluoresce conspicuously is if they spit right on top of the food and didn't mix it in.
That's what I was counting on. I figure the servers would be the clowns who would contaminate the food, not the cooks. The waitcreatures probably wouldn't have an opportunity to mix it in.
Even if it didn't actually work, I'll bet it would scare the snot out of them if a customer wearing a big, conspicuous "I SUPPORT WALKER" pulled out a UV light.
wv: slyzm -- Damn, whatever code selects these words is good ...
Lucid wrote:
Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light.
Oh, put a lid on it, already.
You are complaining about THE ONE BLOG in the whole of the Blogosphere that has "dared" to point out less than fawning images and viewpoints of a budget protest in Wisconsin, compared to the THOUSANDS of mainstream media outlets that spout the union line.
You wannt to know why Fox News is as popular as it is? Look no further than the attitude you have towards dissent. By constantly going after Althouse, you and your ilk want to scare her from continuing her coverage. Disgusting.
@vbs--
What I wrote was long, so you perhaps can be excused for not reading it before you responded (or perhaps simply not understanding it).
My point was not that she is a conservative. I watch Fox regularly (not Hannity or Beck, but Special Report and Shepherd Smith). I voted straight Republican in the last election, except for where I voted Libertarian.
But what Althouse is doing is not "coverage"--that was one of the main points of what I wrote. She is not a journalist. She has no training or experience. Perhaps most importantly, she does not have editors or colleagues to rein or in or give her some balance, who could keep her from screaming about doorknobs and making accusations about who created a major fire hazard by handcuffing doors shut (you would think the "handcuffs" would have tipped her off).
She has taken the anonymous and venomous atmospherics of the blogosphere, in which her only experience exists, and applied it to her individually identifiable neighbors as though she were a journalist who knew what she was doing.
What she is doing is simply a personal attack on people that she has photographed and then exposed to hatred on her blog. Her work has no other standing or credibility (except to the credulous).
My other major point was that having been incompetent and venomous at what she intended, she should at least have the maturity to accept the consequences of her actions.
She should recognize that the people that she as a private citizen has been attacking and deriding are not likely to think well of her personally. Should she be surprised by this? They are not likely to forget, and they are not likely to welcome her presence in restaurants or bars in Madison when they are present.
Libtard: She is not a journalist.
LOL.
She has no training or experience.
Bwa-hahahahaha!
Perhaps most importantly, she does not have editors or colleagues to rein or in or give her some balance
oh god make him stop! Hahahahhahah!
Lucid. You realize you are describing the methods of the msm don't you? The part about the special training for journalists mad e me spew cola through my nose. Very funny.
@ lucid
Is it painful to be such a tool?
"She has no training or experience"? She's a law professor and she needs special "training" to be a "journalist"? It's the idea that there is such a thing as "journalist training" that fucked up the news business.
"Perhaps most importantly, she does not have editors or colleagues to rein or in or give her some balance"
That's the fucking point of a blog, you dimwit! And I don't see the so-called editors and colleagues "reining in" or "giving balance" to the laughably imbalanced, unreined twaddle that pretends to be impartial, neutral, professional coverage.
Lucid, why don't you just admit that all of your "complaints" are bullshit excuses and embellishments of the simple truth: you disagree with her regarding the Walker fiscal policy. See? Isn't that so much simpler than your weeks of pathetic whining and moaning and nit-picking? And the reason you disagree is that you probably have a stake in the union side of thing.
Yes, great, we get it! You disagree with us! Now quit being pathetic and run along if you're not satisfied with what's posted here.
My God, Lucid, as you can see by the previous commenters' reaction, YOU DO NOT GET IT.
It's 2011. No one needs to have gone to J-School to turn on a flip-cam and film people where there is no expectation of privacy. This is the WHOLE purpose of social media like Blogger. It's frees peons like Althouse to share news around them with their fellow peons, you and me.
You are a complete, perhaps irredeemable elitist.
What she is doing is simply a personal attack on people that she has photographed and then exposed to hatred on her blog. Her work has no other standing or credibility (except to the credulous).
Yeah, who ya gonna believe? The talking points, or your lyin' eyes?
Suuuuuure you voted Republican and Libertarian. I'll bet you'll stake your integrity and your reputation on that statement.
LEAVE THE PROTESTERS ALONE! LEAVE THEM ALONE! I'M SERIOUS.
NOT having training hasn't hampered either Ann or Meade when it comes to DELIVERING a blog that is ON TARGET! And, brings in plenty of people to look around. Who have been curious about the Madison "story."
Where the union LOST.
And, the 14-democratic Badgers finally came back from Illinois without victory!
Sure. There is one judge "SUE ME" (sumi), who has stopped the law from taking effect ... And, where we learned the unions are working "overtime" to get deals in.
For Ann and Meade ALL OF THIS has proven to be "BLOGGABLE." Even Jim Shankman's diatribe. And, the handcuffs on the Rotunda doors. Have all made it out to lots of people. Just because there are two people "with no training."
Reminds me how art training can ruin art ability, as well.
While the MSM isn't providing jobs to those who spent money on getting credentialed.
She should recognize that the people that she as a private citizen has been attacking and deriding are not likely to think well of her personally. Should she be surprised by this?
So...then....by this reasoning, the woman who puts herself in a dangerous situation by wearing a low cut top at a bar, late at night....deserves to be raped?!?
What you are saying that Althouse (and Meade) by stepping out of line, according to YOUR views, they deserve to become targets of violence.
Because someone is not in lock-step with what you consider to be the 'correct' views and right thinking.....they deserve to be punished??? That is OK with you.
Very Orwellian of you.
Do you have ANY self awareness at all?
Perhaps most importantly, she does not have editors or colleagues to rein or in or give her some balance ...
And by an odd coincidence, lucid's fellow travelers have volunteered for that job:
We demand ZERO more posts about us, ever. We demand theadmin pw for all of your shit to be publicly posted on a movement friendlyfacebook group or 4chan. We demand to be allowed to vet everything you postbefore you post it and edit it for any and all lies related to #wiunion, #wewarewi,#union, #usuncut #opesr #wikileaks #solidarity and#allthatisgoodandholyonthisearth. We demand that you Delete FuckingEverything.
Based on your big name J-school products, I'd say evidence points to J-school's being net negative.
Journalists should go to school to learn about something so that they can talk about it intelligently.
She should recognize that the people that she as a private citizen has been attacking and deriding are not likely to think well of her personally.
So? In the words of Lucius Accius:
"Oderint dum metuant."
They don't have to fear her, they just have to worry about obeying the law and the consequences of their own actions. I doubt that Althouse cares what you sniveling slackers think of her, as long as you don't break the law and don't assault her or Meade.
What you are saying that Althouse (and Meade) by stepping out of line, according to YOUR views, they deserve to become targets of violence.
That's not exactly what he meant, as he'll no doubt rebut. But regardless, that is how it comes off as if he's saying.
"YOU PUBLISHED PEOPLE'S FACES AND WHAT THEY SAID AT A PROTEST RALLY AND YOU HAVE THE GALL TO COMPLAIN IF THEY ATTACK YOU!!!!!"
Yeah. That worked out real swell for Lara Logan, didn't it.
Large balls of brass.
"After all, if you were in a restaurant chowing down creamed soup and french fries, would you want me at the table next to you?"
Why on earth would I notice?
About the "SLOBS" sign:
Glenn Grothman, one of the Republican senators, was surrounded by a mob as he was trying to get into the capitol. He was rescued by a Democratic representative (you could tell them apart in those days because the Dems wore orange union T-shirts) who held off the crowd. The Republican made the mistake of saying that many of the illegal occupiers of the capitol looked like slobs. So now we're all supposed to support the slobs, as they have become heroes on the order of the D-Day veterans. And no, I'm not making this up.
I kinda' understand your point, Lucid, but I think it's a bit off the mark.
“Althouse” at its best is a spirited chronicle of legal and political debate. The fact that the left has embraced a number of laughably tone-deaf methods in support of its argument would seem to indicate that derision is exactly the tone called for.
Well-placed mockery is a sign of a healthy citizenry.
"I think this is because you made it personal when you crossed the line between blogging and journalism. Day after day you put real people--who felt their economic security and self-respect were at stake--on your blog. In pictures and video you had taken of them, you exposed real individuals to derision, hostility, and hatred--some of it from you, much of it from your commenters. You yourself often went out of your way to make fun of them or to portray them in an unflattering light."
I went to a public place and found people who were *demonstrating* — asking to be seen, and I photographed them. They were posing and seeking attention. I (and Meade) took photographs and video that were *welcomed* — and it means what it means. If it doesn't look the way they'd hoped, what does that mean? It's irrelevant to use whether it's officially journalism. We are bloggers, and we are part of a movement of inventing a new form of expression. I make no apologies for the way we are doing this.
"You did this without any pretense of journalistic distance or balance, acting solely as a self-interested, individual blogger."
I am proud to be a blogger — immensely proud to be part of inventing what blogging is. I'm an out and proud blogger. Let journalism look after itself.
"Covering and recording and then attacking real people in a real life setting is very different from the casual ethos of blogging where no one really has much at stake, the style is often venomous, accusations (like who handcuffed the doors) are freely thrown about, and most communications are anonymous."
Attacking? We drop in to a public event, take pictures of people who are seeking attention, and we show what we saw. If it works as an attack, the people who displayed themselves should take responsibility for their own performance.
"You have in fact made it personal by confusing blogging and journalism."
We're not the *slightest* bit confused. Have we upset people who had high self-esteem? Damn right! Do we understand that we hurt their feelings? Absolutely! Are we sorry? Of course not. This is political (and artistic) expression, and they did their thing and we did ours. We stand ready to receive our blog-Pulitzer prize.
"irrelevant to use" = irrelevant to us
Why on earth would I notice?
You'd notice lucid. Sleep in a cardboard box for a few weeks, and you'd get a little ripe, too.
I kinda' understand your point, Lucid, but I think it's off the mark.
“Althouse” at its best is a spirited chronicle of legal and political debate. The fact that the left has adopted a number of laughably tone-deaf *public* demonstrations in support of its position would seem to indicate that derision is exactly the tone called for.
Well-placed mockery is a sign of a healthy citizenry.
Do you think teachers, firefighters, nurses, cops, etc. DON'T pay taxes?
One other thing I would like to add to Chip S. that any tax increase that the nursed and cops and teachers may have will be outweighed by their salary increase. So if they end up getting $100 dollar increase monthly, they will have a tax increase of maybe $5, and net increase of $95. But taxpayer family gets no increase in salary and get a tax increase, like you estimated a new $95 bill per month.
Hey I would be screaming raise my taxes also if I new I would have to pay a mere additional $5, but get a net $95 dollar increase.
So the fact that government employees (I refuse to call them workers) pay taxes is just a diversion.
I have tried to stay away from the whole state street "solidarity" area, but if I were to spend any time there my tactic would be to go into every business with the "fist" or other union signs and tell the manager that I will not be patronizing their establishment until the are removed. I would also tell them I will tell everyone I know to stay away. You got it right, when their politics hits them in the pocket book, things change pretty quickly. Capitalism does work, even though the socialist have been trying to destroy it for years.
I really wish I could be a "working family". I spent 20 years raising my kids, as a single parent, working all kinds of various jobs. Some had benefits, some had none, health care was a privilege, sick days was a privilege, and heaven forbid having enough to set aside for retirement. All the while the unions kept negotiating for better benefits for the teachers who made more than I could even dream of, and telling me I had to make more sacrifices. I am sorry if you poor union people think I am being greedy, but I believe that you shouldn't have the right to claim more of the fruits of my labor than I have a right to. Collective bargaining is NOT a right, raising my taxes is not your RIGHT!
Thanks for the explanation, Wordsmith2. :)
wv: supsuppe (heh! Sounds like something used by Greg Gutfeld on "RedEye". "'Wassup, wassuppers")
@Anne,
Sounds like a typical "I had a shitty time, so you should have a shitty time too" argument (albeit with a lot more words).
I wish you would have had jobs with better benefits and an easier life.
Most of us have had some tough times, financial and otherwise.
I think your anger is misdirected.
LarsPorsena said:
One of my favorites.
I suspected as much!
@Ann--
Your response is almost completely off point.
It is not a question of "official" journalism. It is a question of incompetent psuedo-journalism, of highly antagonistic and personalized blogging masquerading as journalism.
It is a question of looking honestly at what happens when a blogger mixes directly in real events for the coincidental reason that they occurred a short distance from her home.
What happens is that the defects and weaknesses of most blogs are exposed.
And, of course, nothing I said disputes your right to blog, which you wave as though you are doing something important.
But a disinterested look at what you have actually done here--and what your commenters have written over the weeks of your "coverage"--does not speak well for you, or your blog, or for most of your commenters.
The comments are grim and small-minded and nasty, the kinds of things that people would be ashamed to say at the dinner table or in front of their families.
Its animosity and venom run amok, but now applied to real people whom you photographed and then derided and exposed to hatred.
Go back and read what has actually been written here. What place should such material occupy in civic affairs?
A Pulitzer? Really?
Your blog is actually almost contentless except for the emotional venom.
If you want to see what serious blogs look like--blogs that speak well for their creators, google "Posner Becker" or "Greg Mankiw."
All that you are doing you have the right to do. Fine. Just don't be surprised when people don't want to sit next to you in a restaurant or bar or when they otherwise treat you like a pariah. Expect it. Don't be surprised.
Pornographers sometimes have the same problem.
@Ann--
Your response is almost completely off point.
It is not a question of "official" journalism. It is a question of incompetent psuedo-journalism, of highly antagonistic and personalized blogging masquerading as journalism.
It is a question of looking honestly at what happens when a blogger mixes directly in real events for the coincidental reason that they occurred a short distance from her home.
What happens is that the defects and weaknesses of most blogs are exposed.
And, of course, nothing I said disputes your right to blog, which you wave as though you are doing something important.
But a disinterested look at what you have actually done here--and what your commenters have written over the weeks of your "coverage"--does not speak well for you, or your blog, or for most of your commenters.
The comments are grim and small-minded and nasty, the kinds of things that people would be ashamed to say at the dinner table or in front of their families.
It's animosity and venom run amok, but now applied to real people whom you photographed and then derided and exposed to hatred.
Go back and read what has actually been written here. What place should such material occupy in civic affairs?
A Pulitzer? Really?
Your blog is actually almost contentless except for the emotional venom.
If you want to see what serious blogs look like--blogs that speak well for their creators, google "Posner Becker" or "Greg Mankiw."
All that you are doing you have the right to do. Fine. Just don't be surprised when people don't want to sit next to you in a restaurant or bar or when they otherwise treat you like a pariah. Expect it. Don't be surprised.
Pornographers sometimes have the same problem.
@Ann--
Your response is almost completely off point.
It is not a question of "official" journalism. It is a question of incompetent psuedo-journalism, of highly antagonistic and personalized blogging masquerading as journalism.
It is a question of looking honestly at what happens when a blogger mixes directly in real events for the coincidental reason that they occurred a short distance from her home.
What happens is that the defects and weaknesses of most blogs are exposed.
And, of course, nothing I said disputes your right to blog, which you wave as though you are doing something important.
But a disinterested look at what you have actually done here--and what your commenters have written over the weeks of your "coverage"--does not speak well for you, or your blog, or for most of your commenters.
The comments are grim and small-minded and nasty, the kinds of things that people would be ashamed to say at the dinner table or in front of their families.
It's animosity and venom run amok, but now applied to real people whom you photographed and then derided and exposed to hatred.
Go back and read what has actually been written here. What place should such material occupy in civic affairs?
A Pulitzer? Really?
Your blog is actually almost contentless except for the emotional venom.
If you want to see what serious blogs look like--blogs that speak well for their creators, google "Posner Becker" or "Greg Mankiw."
All that you are doing you have the right to do. Fine. Just don't be surprised when people don't want to sit next to you in a restaurant or bar or when they otherwise treat you like a pariah. Expect it. Don't be surprised.
Pornographers sometimes have the same problem.
I have been away with limited internet access and missed the screed except for tripping across it yesterday.
Over 600 comments? Wow.
A couple of us were discussing the Wisconsin thing (it started with a discussion of easy airports and Madison was mentioned) and we ended up laughing at the fact that while the unions were inundating Madison, Ohio went ahead and passed a similar bill in three days.
The fleebaggers were generally regarded as autocratic jerks -- sore losers.
wv rapticar
Jurassic park vehicle?
Welcome back, JAL! Yes, you did miss some fireworks, but here you are.
wv: chinga (GASP, total bad word in Spanish)
@Ann--
Your response is almost completely off point.
It is not a question of "official" journalism. It is a question of psuedo-journalism, of highly antagonistic and personalized blogging masquerading as journalism.
It is a question of looking honestly at what happens when a blogger mixes directly in real events for the coincidental reason that they occurred a short distance from her home.
What happens is that the defects and weaknesses of (most) blogs are exposed.
And, of course, nothing I said disputes your right to blog, which you wave as though you are doing something important.
But a disinterested look at what you have actually done here--and what your commenters have written over the weeks of your "coverage"--does not speak well for your blog or for most of your commenters.
The comments are grim and small-minded and nasty, the kinds of things that people would be ashamed to say at the dinner table or in front of their families.
It's animosity and venom run amok, but now applied to real people whom you photographed and then derided and exposed to hatred.
Go back and read what has actually been written here. What place should such material occupy in civic affairs?
A Pulitzer? Really?
All that you are doing you have the right to do. Fine. Just don't be surprised when people don't want to sit next to you in a restaurant or bar or when they otherwise treat you like a pariah. Expect it. Don't be surprised. Pornographers sometimes have the same problem.
Well said, lucid.
"It is not a question of "official" journalism. It is a question of psuedo-journalism, of highly antagonistic and personalized blogging masquerading as journalism."
Very amusing, considering that your comment before was almost entirely predicated on "journalist training" and "editor control."
Hear that? Its the sound of you moving the goalposts.
"It's animosity and venom run amok, but now applied to real people whom you photographed and then derided and exposed to hatred."
In other words, people saying idiotic things in public are ridiculed. This is clearly a human-rights tragedy, much on the level of Walker's Mubarak-style slaughter of the perfectly aptly named "working families".
Indeed, the people saying stupid things should not be held responsible at all.
Post a Comment