I'm linking to the publication of the article in the Wisconsin State Journal, because it seems to be the original version of what Lueders wrote. The version that now appears at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism has been — according to a note in red at the top, time-stamped 10:15 p.m. — "updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations." But "updated" does not mean that there is an update at the bottom of the original text, adding new material or noting mistakes. The article has been rewritten, so the flaws that I am going to write about here can no longer be detected.
I first read the Lueders article after it was noted in an email that went out to the Wisconsin Law School faculty. I won't quote that email, but my immediate emailed response was: "I think it would make an interesting object of study for a journalism class."
By the way, the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, as you might imagine, purports to model high journalism values. It is "a first-of-its-kind alliance with public broadcasting journalists in six cities around the state, plus students and faculty of the journalism school at Wisconsin’s flagship university." Wisconsin's "flagship university" is, of course, the University of Wisconsin—Madison, my place of employment. I'm not inclined to hurt my own university, but I will make my observations as I see them. This is an object of study for the little journalism class of the internet that is this blog post.
Over the course of the day, yesterday, on lefty blogs and Twitter, there were vicious attacks on Prosser, with many opponents of Prosser (and Scott Walker) asserting that Prosser must leave the court. He should resign (or be impeached or recalled). I linked to a blog post over at Think Progress, where Ian Millhiser concluded:
Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous.I agreed with Millhiser that "if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go." But I wanted to know the whole story. It seemed to me that Lueders had given us "just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event." I was skeptical about the version of the story Lueders had put out, because there had been no arrest and because I found it hard to picture an elderly, dignified man suddenly grabbing a (somewhat less elderly) woman by the neck.
I first noted the Lueders article in this post, where I excerpted 2 paragraphs and wondered about Lueders's reference to his sources: "The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships." Lueders said he had "three knowledgeable sources," and that he had contacted Prosser for a response and that Prosser had said "I have nothing to say about it."
He repeated this statement after the particulars of the story - including the allegation that there was physical contact between him and Bradley - were described. He did not confirm or deny any part of the reconstructed account.Later in the day, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel came out with an article that revealed more complexity to the allegations. I wrote about that post last night, noting the account of "a source" who had spoken to "several" of the justices who witnessed the incident (there were "[a]t least five"), and said that Prosser "put his hands around" Bradley's neck, without "exert[ing] any pressure," which Bradley "described as a chokehold."
The Journal Sentinel then cites "another source" that said "that Bradley attacked Prosser." Here we get the first allegation that Bradely "charged him with fists raised" and that Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," blocking her, resulting in hand-neck contact.
The Journal Sentinel begins a new paragraph with "Another source..." If that is not miswritten, we now have a third source — "another" and then "another" — that's the second and third source. This third source, like the second source, has Bradley coming at Prosser "with fists up" and Prosser reacting defensively. This source — which I'm seeing as the Sentinel's third source — confirms the first source in saying that Bradley called it choking at the time. This source also has a Justice (not Prosser) reacting by saying "You were not choked."
Now, we've just reviewed the stories of various unnamed sources, as reported by Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What I want to know is: What is the total number of sources? Is it 6? 5? 4? Or is it 3? It could be only 3! That is, 2 of Lueders's sources could have been the sources who gave the fuller context, with Bradley as the aggressor. What did Lueders know and when did he know it? Did Lueders have the fists-of-fury version of the story and deliberately leave it out? Did he leave it out when he contacted Prosser for a response and recited "the particulars of the story," the "reconstructed account" that he referred to in his article.
I told you this was going to be a little journalism class. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, will you investigate your own journalism?
Maybe Prosser had "nothing to say about it" because the "reconstructed account" Lueders recited contained the allegation that Bradley charged at him with raised fists. Prosser did comment later in the day — a day full of destructive attacks on him, which speculated about the meaning of his absence of comment. Those attacks assumed that Prosser knew the story in the form that would appear in Lueders's article. But did he? I want to know!
In my last post of the day, commenting on the Journal Sentinel article, I said:
I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.When I wrote that, it did not cross my mind that the "truly evil" person might be Lueders himself. That's something occurred to me when I woke up this morning and began thinking about the possibility that the total number of unnamed sources was only 3.
Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?
Now, let's go back to what Ian Millhiser said: "Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous." All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?
Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.
And what are the methods of ouster? Refer to the list in Millhiser's post: 1. Resignation, 2. Impeachment, 3. Removal by Address, and 4. Recall. A newly reelected official, under Wisconsin law, cannot be recalled for a year. Unlike Prosser, who was just reelected, Bradley is subject to recall. Impeachment and removal by address are procedures that take place in the state legislature. But the state legislature is controlled by the Republicans, who aren't likely to go after Prosser. Only Bradley is vulnerable to impeachment and removal by address if the legislature is influenced by political ideology. And if either justice is removed, the replacement will be named by Governor Scott Walker, so only Bradley's ouster will change the conservative-liberal balance on the court.
See what I mean about stupid? If Lueders didn't know the allegation about Bradley after doing his investigative journalism, that was stupid. How could he investigate and not find that out? If Lueders did know the allegation and suppressed it he was not merely stupid but evil. And make no mistake about how stupid: His article initiated a day of furious writing by liberals that threatens to hurt Bradley and the liberal interests in Wisconsin.
ADDED: I corrected a mistake in the paragraph that begins "Maybe Prosser had 'nothing to say about it'..." It was originally missing the word "had" and said "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited contained the allegation" instead of "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited did not contain the allegation..." UPDATE: It was right the first time, as someone in the comments pointed out! I uncorrected it. And now it's un-uncorrected. Sorry for the confusion!
ALSO: Instapundit says: "It’s as if the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is just a partisan hit shop or something."
IN THE COMMENTS: Bill Lueders himself responds:
As our original story reported, the Center and WPR made individual inquiries to every member of the Supreme Court...So, it's a mystery how the Journal Sentinel came up with the 2 sources who portrayed Bradley as the physical aggressor. Lueders does not say whether he went back to his original sources to inquire about about the truth of that story — unless Bradley was one of the original sources. Whether Bradley was one of the original sources or not, he's giving us only an ambiguous statement with respect to the question whether she did anything like charging at Prosser with raised fists. We get the conclusory assertion — not in the form of a direct quote — that she "ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault." Her version could be that Prosser verbal statements made her extremely angry and refused to leave her office, so it was his fault that she ran at him with raised fists. What exactly happened? Why didn't she call the police?
We had as reported "at least three" sources for the statement that Prosser allegedly put his hands around Bradley's neck. We also spoke to others who declined to give any information about what occurred. No one said or suggested in any way, shape or form that Bradley was the aggressor, a charge that Prosser himself has not made. The Journal Sentinel says it found sources who contend this, so we updated the story to reflect that, but I do not know who these sources are and have no way to gauge their credibility, as I do for the sources we had.
As you know, Justice Bradley has now publicly accused Prosser of putting his hands around her neck and ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault....
We absolutely did not have information about an alternative version that we purposely withheld.
Lueders doesn't say how much (if at all) he probed into the context of what happened. I'm puzzled by his lack of curiosity about a story that is so inherently hard to believe. Why did the Journal Sentinel so quickly turn up a more complex version of the story? Was Lueders willfully incurious? Why did he pass on such an odd story without asking the questions that an ordinary person would instinctively ask? Or did he ask those questions? Did his sources insist that Bradley was sitting or standing peacefully and Prosser suddenly lunged at her? Or did he snap up the useful version of the story and run with it? It just doesn't add up to me.
Posts
359 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 359 of 359"... you are asking a leech to do work. That goes so strongly against the grain of a stupid slacker like Lueders that you know it will never happen. He is only interested in furthering his leftist agenda, not facts."
I suspect this as well, but I'm happy grant Bill Leuder the benefit of the doubt. But also to alert him that he has an obligation to continue to report on this story and to confront his original sources again and tell us what they say NOW.
He will either do that, or he will refuse to do that and we can then draw the conclusion that you have drawn. That his actions amount to actual malice aforethought.
Let's see if he'll even respond to my questions and concerns. I hope he will, but let's see if he does.
But unlike Lueders' account, Pusa76 was fortunate enough that his allegations were somewhat proven.
"Somewhat proven"? To what extent were they not?
I see that while Bill Leuder was kind enough to grace us with his presence, he was not inclined to do anything to clarify matters. That's telling. Bill Leuder, were your sources in the room at the time of the incident? One, two or all three of them?
Just nod if they weren't actually in the room.
wv: boxycent
My new name for the funky squarish-shaped ancient coins that I occasionally clean/collect.
Ren weeped:
"We were all terrified of the final because we had to spend the 3 days prior to it studying and teaching ourselves the law. "
I thought everyone knew Althouse hates little, wimpering pussies. And you and your classmates sound like little wimpering pussies.
"I'd still say that men shouldn't call these nags bitches..."
Why not? Is it ok to call them 'nags'? What about 'nagging bitches'? Do you have a list of acceptible epithets written down somewhere?
Emily Post wrote:
"But, I'd still say that men shouldn't call these nags bitches, and men shouldn't threaten to destroy these nags."
Well could he say, "Look you filthy nag, I'll nail your mangy pelt to the Capitol door"?
this particular tiny, old man
I notice that in your telling, Abrahamson is "an elderly lady" while Prosser is a "tiny, old man".
Is this sort of thing at all convincing even to other liberals? Or is the point not to be convincing, but rather some sort of involuntary emotional reflex?
...some sort of involuntary emotional reflex?
That's got my vote. Just can't help themselves.
I thank Althouse for a reasoned, well thought out post. And not just for the politics of this particular issue. I think it's important for the continued prestige of academics that someone among their ranks appear intelligent and thoughtful...In like way it is important for the presige of the judiciary that judges act in such a way that they appear to have a judicial temperment. I suppose it's possible that one justice is more of a jerk than the other, but both appear to be jerks. As such, they both bring the judiciary into ill repute.....Further: it is important for the reputation of journalists that they appear to be objective seekers of the truth. Leuders does not reveal the possible motivations of his anonymous sources when that, in fact, may be the most important part of the story, nor does he exhibit any curiousity as to the motivations or preceding events for Prosser's actions. His account appears to be willfully damning. I don't get a sense of objectivity from his reporting......I remember reading about the Bristol-Levi wine cooler debate. I pass no judgement on the plying with wine coolers issue, but I think it's fair to say that all parties--Levi, Bristol, the press that reported on it--all acted in their own self interest. Well, you expect high school kids to act like high school kids, and reporters to try to sell papers. But you expect Justices to act like Justices and investigative reporters to investigate. Epic fail for everyone.
"But, now you've moved on to the bitch/destroy talk,..."
You brought up the "bitch/destroy" talk, PB&J.
Number of ways of seating n indistinguishable stupid people and n indistinguishable evil people around a circular table so that each stupid person is next to at least one evil person, and each evil person is next to at least one stupid person
1 2
2 6
3 14
4 30
5 72
6 174
7 422
8 1038
9 2570
10 6396
11 15996
12 40158
13 101142
14 255450
15 646734
16 1640814
17 4170612
18 10618338
19 27074090
20 69123780
Not as many as you'd think.
2*sum {k=0..[n/2]} binomial(n-k,k)^2*n/(n-k)
I will have to say, everyone I know or have known that has gone to either law school or journalism school is usually hard left wing. Maybe met one or two law school students that were moderate, but it seems to be two professions that attract liberals who want to use their careers to change the country. If you can manipulate the law, and influence the flow of information, it goes a long ways to that.
There are also a few lawyers who are great center-right minds.
"You should inform Big Government of this, because they have identified patriotusa76 and Dan Wolfe as being the same person. And I'm pretty sure (I can't be bothered to check) that as soon as the Weiner story broke, all the lefty bloggers and commenters were howling about Dan Wolfe by name. So it was never a Big Secret."
No, Flenser, you should look back over their coverage.
They have no idea who the real person behind the Dan Wolfe pseudonym is. They know he used a name, Dan Wolfe, that isn't really his.
I read Lueder's posted comment. If I might paraphrase Mary McCarthy, I think every word in that comment is a lie, include 'the' and 'and.'
"G Joubert said...
But unlike Lueders' account, Pusa76 was fortunate enough that his allegations were somewhat proven.
"Somewhat proven"? To what extent were they not?
6/26/11 2:13 PM"
Well, of course, Weiner was lying about being hacked, and he was lying about sending nasty photos to women, and he was lying about selecting followers for sex appeal, abusing his station as a political leader for the lamest thing.
All I know of that is still in controversy is whether he really was sending this material to high school kids or just adults. And the real motivation behind PatriotUSA, which I realize is not a major issue since he was largely correct anyway.
"How fucking stupid do you think people are?"
More than I did before I started reading Garbage's comments here, and then when pb&j started dropping in my estimation of "how fucking stupid" I think at least some people are underwent a revision to "incredibly fucking stupid."
However, I believe both Garbage and pb&j are merely willfully ignorant and must appear stupid or they couldn't continue to write such obvious crap.
As for 'Ren'-- well he sounds like too many students, even grad students, who want to continue to be spoon fed [*whine* "Will that be on the final?"] 'education' instead of actually learning to think. It would appear he'll be one of those law grads who owes big money and gets no job. [Well, he's quite possibly a legacy and some firm will give him a place to hide.] [And I hope he never has a case involving Ritalin.]
flenser, believe Dustin. Things have been happening on Patterico, Stranahan, Breitbart, etc. in just the last couple days. "PatUSA..." x2 and Dan Wolfe are all ciphers now.
(Don't even ask about "JohnReid".)
@RenFromFiredogLake said:
"Althouse probably just got back her teacher evaluations, and she's taking her anger out on Mr. Luerders. She has consistently been the worst-rated teacher at the law school, and anyone who's had this lunatic for a professor will know exactly what I'm talking about."
So you research profs AFTER taking the class? Otherwise, you wouldn't have taken a class from a fucking lunatic. Right?
Ridiculous.
rhhardin wins the thread! (Useful formula--I LIKE "interesting" dinner parties--preferably ones ending up with food being thrown and at least one person ending up in the grip of a headlock and rapidly turning blue)
No, Flenser, you should look back over their coverage.
You should look back over your own comments on this thread, such as:
It's relatively clear that he is not Dan Wolfe
Now you say that "Dan Wolfe" is a fictitious name.
Is Dan Wolfe a pseudonym? Could be, but I see no reason to assume so.
They know he used a name, Dan Wolfe, that isn't really his.
Who is "they", and how do they "know" this?
"Arturo, which story sounds more plausible: a nearly 70 year old justice with no explained provocation starts strangling another individual or during a heated argument the other approaches the the first in a physically agressive posture who responds by putting up his hands in a defensive gesture, physical contact is made, after which both parties back down. The first story at best sounds incomplete."
Prosser has already admitted that he publicly called his fellow justice a "bitch" in the past. He is the one with the record, not her.
flenser, believe Dustin.
I'm afraid I don't find your command to be a persuasive argument.
Things have been happening on Patterico, Stranahan, Breitbart, etc. in just the last couple days. "PatUSA..." x2 and Dan Wolfe are all ciphers now.
I'm not even sure why we should care, but let's care for just a moment. I went to Patterico's just now and scanned the last few days posts. I don't see any any Dan Wolfe Is A Cipher! headlines though.
Prosser has already admitted that he publicly called his fellow justice a "bitch" in the past.
No! Dear God, the horror!
Prosser is a volcano tempered menace with past outbursts with female colleagues.
GM knows that because his union rep told him. Cite?
Remember folks, its' not about the facts it's about the truthiness of the narrative that counts.
Remember only super radical lefties like GM have pre-judged Prosser as a thug. 90% of Wisconsinites are giving him the benefit of the doubt. GM is like a yapping terrier. Big on bark, small on bite.
Prosser has already admitted that he publicly called his fellow justice a "bitch" in the past.
That is an insult too ugly for words. Bitches all over the world are enraged they are being compared to a WI Supreme Court justice.
As for Bradley, she can only gaze longingly at the lofty social status being a bitch would give her compared to what she is now.
I've been trying for some time to figure out what P&BJs initials stand for ;-)
You only speak in headlines? Poor, simple soul.
You really think you have a better handle on Dan Wolfe than the rest of the blogosphere? Wonderful, let's hear it. That's what we've been waiting for.
One hour later, still waiting for an answer:
I've asked here before, why is it that the left thinks that intimations of homosexuality are (a) universally germane and (b) impeachments of the person in question? This is as good a time as any for you to essay an answer.
pb&J? bueller? anyone?
"Being a firm believer in gender equality, I reject your outdated patriarchal notion that women are delicate flowers who must be protected from mean men who might hurt their feelings.
Taken to its logical conclusion, your position would lead to the exclusion of women from the workplace."
Taken to its logical conclusion, your position implies that those trying to enforce a misogyny-free workplace are the real misogynists.
Chip,
I wasn't using "unmarried" as some sort of code word for "gay."
I've never seen it used that way. And, it's never occurred to me to use it as a code word, it seems like there are a lot of non gay unmarried guys, so this would be a lame code word. I think that "light in the loafers" is better. Less chance for confusion.
Presumably as more states go the ny way it will be increasingly obvious, to you, that "unmarried" means "unmarried."
Come on, flenser. You consider every word I say as intended to be a "command", apparently, so hop the fuck to it, and solve the DW mystery.
You really think you have a better handle on Dan Wolfe than the rest of the blogosphere?
See, that was an invitation to you to provide an actual link, not to warble on about "the blogosphere".
I did look around Patterico, where I saw Dustin pouring cold water on Stranahan.
I don't know what your hard on for Wolfe is but if you ever offer any actual data to look at, I'll look at it. I can't do more than that.
If you google Lueder's organization, you will find that it is funded by George Soros.
The far left couldn't defeat Prosser at the ballot box, so here come the dirty tricks.
Lueder is evil, but also stupid, in my opinion.
I think the more customary term has been "lifelong bachelor," but I accept your point about gay marriage. Of course, that applies equally to your usage of "married" to mean "lived with a woman."
Taken to its logical conclusion, your position implies that those trying to enforce a misogyny-free workplace are the real misogynist
Taken to it's logical conclusion, your belief that any male who says something rude to any female is a "real misogynist" implies that you possess the IQ of a head of cabbage.
If you google Lueder's organization, you will find that it is funded by George Soros.
I wonder what GM has to say about that.
Blow me.
I wonder what GM has to say about that.
I'm not sure, but I think it would have something to do with the Koch brothers.
Prosser has already admitted that he publicly called his fellow justice a "bitch" in the past.
Two problems with what you just wrote, Arturo. First, it wasn't public, it was in chambers. Second, she really is a bitch.
"Blow me."
Now, now, let's not start channelling Jeremy here.
"Of course, that applies equally to your usage of "married" to mean "lived with a woman.""
Yup.
That did occur to me after I wrote that.
And, since we're being technical, there are plenty of holes in my original suggestion that being married forces a guy to learn to better deal w/ women. Surely this isn't true for all marriages. And, I'm sure that living together sans marriage can get to the same point.
But, I was thinking about this when I made the marriage comment. On average, marriage seems to civilize men.
See, if I was Arutuo I'd accuse Lincolntf of misandry.
Instead of which I'll simply accuse him of failing to offer evidence in support of his claims.
There's the difference between left and right.
Althouse is the evil stupid person here. She is completely willing to believe an unnamed source who says what she wants. Her stupidity & evil makes it hard for me to believe she remains employed. I pity her students.
KLDAVIS said..."Your original text for that paragraph made more sense than the updated version. If Prosser was presented with the full context by Lueder, why would he comment? The facts show he was defending himself. However, if he was presented with a warped story of him attacking a woman unprovoked, I think he would have had to make denial. You were right the first time."
Thank you. You're absolutely right. I need to be more careful about doubting myself like that. I've un-uncorrected it.
Arturo,
If every man who has ever called a woman a bitch is misogynistic, then we're all misogynists now.
How about guys who call guys bitch? Or beayatch?
How about women who call other women bitch?
Maybe Abrahamson is a bitch--a real nasty, serpent tongued bitch on wheels. Prosser admitted that his comment was intemperate. He didn't say it wasn't true.
My guess is that Abrahamson and Bradley hate Prosser, and vice versa. My guess is that they are both bitches and that he's an asshole. We'll see.
Walker just signed the budget:
Gov Walker tweet on budget
You're the one making claims, clownzo. Tell me who Dan Wolfe is. I don't claim to know, you do. Hell, call him up if you're so on top of his shit.
And yes, that is another "command" you sensitive little girl.
Althouse is the evil stupid person here. She is completely willing to believe an unnamed source who says what she wants. Her stupidity & evil makes it hard for me to believe she remains employed. I pity her students.
Hey insane person, Althouse was simply referencing The Journal Sentinel story. What's wrong with that?
Say what you want about AA, at least she shows up for work. Unlike the swastika-waving cows from the Teachers' Unions who told their students to fuck off, while they went to extort more cash from the State.
On average, marriage seems to civilize men.
Agreed. I think that's its main social function, and interpreted that way the comment of yours I objected to makes perfect sense.
I do think that the "civilizing-of-men" aspect of marriage is a primary reason why socons worry about replacing it with "marriage lite," aka easily-dissolved domestic partnerships. But I do not want to get involved in a same-sex-marriage discussion!
David Prosser admitted to calling Shirely Abrahamson a bitch. We know this because Ann Walsh Bradley included the statement in an e-mail that was conveniently leaked just before the April Supreme Court election.
When questioned by the media Prosser admitted that he did call Abrahamson a bitch. After reading her dissent (joined by Walsh Bradley) in Ozanne v Fitzgerald I'd say even that description is charitable.
Does anyone think it's odd that Althouse is busy correcting/uncorrecting/ununcorrecting her post, but she can't add space for or a response to Lueder's comment to her post?
I remember her stoking a fight between Palladian and ZPS, where she called out ZPS for, essentially, running and hiding. Look who's hiding now.
Maybe she's assuming that folks will join her by plugging their ears and humming. Nothing to see, move along.
David Prosser admitted to calling Shirely Abrahamson a bitch.
Goodness gracious, I do hope they keep plenty of smelling salts on hand at the WISC. Those delicate flowers of Northern womanhood must be at constant risk of fainting in such a locker-room environment.
@pb&j,
No, I don't find it odd at all, because I didn't see anything in Lueders's comment here that should have caused her to alter her post in any way.
Still awaiting a status report on that "You're Fucking Dead!" Democrat maniac. Has he resigned? Has he been jailed for his prostitution exploits? Or, lemme guess, is he still proudly representing the Liberals of his district?
Ren wants his professors to teach him from his book like an elementary school child.
Here's a clue that will assist you in your education: If your professor is standing there teaching you material that is already taught in your reading, you're getting hosed.
Wisconsin politics can now be fairly described as "warfare by other means." A union official recently declared that the contention between the public unions and the taxpapers (via political assaults on Walker and other Republicans in office) is a "war."
I'll accept that. As the comments exchanged on the JS website and on this site illustrate, the contention that was initiated by the rout of the Democrats both in Wisconsin and throughout the USA in the 2010 election has now become a fight in which Democrats ransack normally democratic procedures for means of attack.
It was only a matter of time before the first signs of physical assault were exhibited and noted publicly as such. Prosser assaults another justice; the other justice assaults Prosser (these two in whichever sequential order you prefer).
I think we all should consider admitting that this is CW2 already in play, and so far up to this point "conducted by other means."
I see no reason why the war the union official took note of will not continue to escalate.
Presumably it will all come out in the wash who did/said what to whom in whatever sequence. And when that happens, will that be the "end of it"? I think not.
After reading her dissent (joined by Walsh Bradley) in Ozanne v Fitzgerald I'd say even that description is charitable.
This. Prior to the dissent, one could infer but not know. By reading the dissent, however, one can know, without doubt, the accuracy of Prosser's assessment.
@Freeman Hunt, Sparknotes version of her dissent?
Freeman wrote:
"Ren wants his professors to teach him from his book like an elementary school child."
Nah, he's just looking for Stimpy in all the wrong places.
Chip,
For one thing, Mr. Evil/Stupid directly addresses the suggestion that he provided Prosser w/ a "reconstructed account." And, while the precise formation of this speculation has Althouse to running in circles w/ corrections and uncorrections and ununcorretions, she doesn't note Leuder had never heard this allegation, even though he contacted all sides of the court.
"We absolutely did not have information about an alternative version that we purposely withheld. When we became aware of this alternative version. we included it. We further updated the piece to reflect that Justice Bradley has refuted this alternative version as "spin.""
Reading Abrahamson's dissent, you can clearly see how Prosser was attacked by Bradley. Either that, or this was all made up. Or
@pbandj,
take a look at the post above yours, she called the alternate version "facts" then called them "spin". Sounds more like an Anthiny Weiner "denial" than a real one.
"High journalism values" and "public broadcasting" is confusing in the same sentence.
I feel like I'm watching the fall of the USSR all over again, but on a very petty scale.
Pass the popcorn.
Per usual, professor, excellent work. Thank you.
Raise your hands in front of you in a quick defensive move. If someone were charging you "with fists raised', where would your hands end up? Right around the neck, shoulder, head area.
I believe the most likely scenario is that she bum-rushed him in an emotional spasm and he put up his hands to stop her. She then panicked, lied, embellished, whatever to the extent that the "Prosser Choked ME!" meme was the first thing to leak.
pb&j, To me, the essential criticism of Lueders is that he was nothing more than a passive vehicle for whatever information came to him, as opposed to someone actively seeking out information. His original story relayed an obviously improbable scenario, as you yourself have stated a couple of times in this thread.
wv exhotte: one thing that Prosser certainly has never called either Abrahamson or Kloppenburg.
exhotte
I love Word Verification. It seems to have a certain sense of what the topic is about.
A bunch of yellow journalist stories get published in Wisconsin media and all of a sudden we're supposed to buy it hook, line and sinker?
believe the most likely scenario is that she bum-rushed him in an emotional spasm and he put up his hands to stop her. She then panicked, lied, embellished, whatever to the extent that the "Prosser Choked ME!" meme was the first thing to leak.
But according to Mahal, Prosser is a past abuser of women or something...
here's a gem of a comment(approved by Mahal):
Janice says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:59 am
It’s not enough to strip the people of their rights, now the Repubs are also looking to get away with murder.
How do you even talk to such people? Janice and Mahal - put them in a padded cell already.
I thought judicial restraint was a legal concept, not a form of chokehold!
We should hear from our Supreme Choke Justice in the next few days I would presume? Chief Tubbs is coming out with a statmenet as well. Should be interesting!
mahal - keep supplying the prose poetry.
@Alex, Did you miss this post? If GM is reading stuff like that regularly, then overall he's doing remarkably well here.
This, for example, made me laugh:
I thought judicial restraint was a legal concept, not a form of chokehold!
Short of case law, long on personal attacks against her fellow justices, especially Prosser. (She mentions Prosser by name about 14 times. He mentions her once, and not to insult her, but to point out a difference of interpretation of particular case cited in her dissent.)
Here's a taste:
" Justice Prosser's concurrence is longer than the
order. The concurrence consists mostly of a statement of
happenings. It is long on rhetoric and long on story-telling
that appears to have a partisan slant"
"Justice Prosser too builds
a straw house to blow down with uncontested, accepted
blackletter law that the Wisconsin Constitution cannot be
changed by statute."
And from the end: "Unreasoned judgments
breed contempt for the law. The majority, by sacrificing honest
reasoning, leads us down a pernicious path. The order today
departs from fundamental principles. It fails to abide by the court's Constitutional authority and its own rules and
procedures and harms the rights of the people from whom our
authority derives."
Her fellow justices are not mistaken or simply in error. They are acting in bad faith.
Which is humorous considering that the argument in her dissent is that the open meetings law should be treated as though it is in the Constitution even though it is not.
Professor Jacobson proposes The Weiner Test!
BTW - this is a story Stephen Glass would be proud to have written.
garage wrote:
"Reading Abrahamson's dissent, you can clearly see how Prosser was attacked by Bradley. Either that, or this was all made up. Or"
Dumb, garage, even by your standards. Your Cheesehead Dan Rather reported that Bradley was upset by Prosser's criticism of Abrahamson.
Look at the first word of your post. Try it.
In fact, based on that dissent alone, I would go farther than Prosser did in his description of his fellow justice.
I assert that "vicious" would have been a more accurate modifier than "total."
I'm sure Garage read all of Stephen Glass' stories and thought they were 100% true back in the day.
Thx, Freeman.
It appears that she comments here regularly, under the pseudonym "garage mahal."
Chip,
I think it's lame for Althouse to have a giant speculation filled post suggesting that someone may be evil/stupid, and then to completely ignore that person's response.
The guy contacted everybody involved. He reported everything he was told. He had at least three sources that all confirmed the story. Nobody told him Bradley was trying to punch Prosser. He didn't trick Prosser into giving a seemingly inappropriate response.
Will Althouse give this man a fair shake?
/rhetorical question
pb&j - will you ever give Prosser, Republicans, conservtives or Christians a fair shake?
pbAndj wrote:
"The guy contacted everybody involved. He reported everything he was told. He had at least three sources that all confirmed the story."
And you know this to be true how?
Shouting Thomas,
Thanks for the link to Fred.
For those who haven't yet read it, is Kim duToit's The Pussification of the Western Male.
pb&j:
--anonymous sources
--highly inflammatory story, possibly calling for removal of a just-reelected judge, if true
--no attempt to dig more deeply, by his own account
The most benign interpretation is "incompetence." The most likely is "insufficiently competent partisan hack." "Evil" remains in play.
Given the weakness of his response, Althouse was probably being nice to him by not updating her post, thereby forgoing the guilty pleasures of fish-gun-barrel. I just assumed she was graciously leaving that fun to her commenters.
By itself, no one's neck can make its way around a table full of people. Unless it's carried there.
That's getting somewhere. It's a fine move when someone's coming at you, to put your hand where their neck is going to be. They can stop, which solves the problem, knock your hand out of the way, which slows them down, or proceed into your hand.
We don't really know much. We have a heavily-spun initial article, from obscured sources. We do know that the excitable Justice Bradley claimed a bunch of things. We know that Justice Prosser says it'll all come out after a proper investigation, whatever that means.
I'm surprised nobody's picked up on the mention that the police were contacted at the time. Run the possibilities ...
Prosser called, Bradley called, or someone else called.
No charges were filed because whoever called was told no crime was committed. Or the wrong person committed a crime. Or it would look bad. Or ... whatever.
If I were Prosser, I'd establish a record even, perhaps especially, if I wasn't going to push the issue right then.
Moving on to Justice Prosser's comportment, in one of the linked articles on the previous post, I counted six (6) calumnies attributed to the Chief Justice or dissenting minority opinion. Not saying "Bastard" in private. Motives, intelligence, background, behavior all called into question in writing, in a judicial finding, all dressed up in third-person language.
Then there's trying to keep the issue off the calendar (rumored), then attempting to delay publication of the finding (confirmed). If this is the kind of personal abuse, professional slander and day to day obstruction Justice Prosser deals with all the time, the woman is, shall we be gender-neutral and say a dick? Because she can?
Dickish behavior isn't limited to those with the equipment. If you're gonna be one, no whining when someone calls you out.
How's it going to end? Given how the election ended, with the fail-ey people flailing away while Prosser calmly & decorously waited for the process to play out, I know where I'd bet.
MHO, it's just "politics by other means" by people not accustomed to accommodating views from outside their monoculture, and with no intention of doing so.
rhhardin --
"20 69123780
Not as many as you'd think."
Then could you please enumerate the sixty-nine million one hundred twenty-three thousand seven hundred and eighty combinations for us?
A joke, but a good demonstration of 'not as many' being entirely relative.
"Taken to it's logical conclusion, your belief that any male who says something rude to any female is a "real misogynist" implies that you possess the IQ of a head of cabbage."
Except that I never wrote any such thing, so it's hard to see how you decided this is my "belief". No, any male saying something rude to any female does not automatically qualify as misogyny. A man calling his co-worker a bitch...yeah, that does. Any regular person (read: not powerful and unaccountable judge) who deployed that kind of language in the workplace would be fired, or at the very least warned and put on some kind of probation. Quickly. If it was the kind of thing they made a habit of, they'd become pretty unemployable. There is a good reason for that. Anyone who made it out of high school should understand.
It is an odd thing to see so many individuals here passionately defending the right to call your co-workers bitches ("well...she IS!"). I have a sneaking suspicion that defending that right anonymously on the internet is about as far as most of you will ever go with that one. Unless the unemployment line is looking fun to you these days.
Wow. The Supreme Court is crazier than the Legislature."
- Scott Fitzgerald, Senate Majority Leader
Arturo Ui --
I'm presuming you'd concur that for a woman to call a man a prick is misandry and requires similar punishment.
Arturo,
You must work in an HR Department. Sorry dude.
No one is defending the "right" for the average Joe to call the average Jane a bitch in the workplace. We're discussing a specific instance in which Jane very unprofessinally called Joe a dishonest nincompoop. That angered Joe and he responded. Now put your HR bona fides to work. Who gets fired, reprimanded, written up, dog cussed, etc.?
any male saying something rude to any female does not automatically qualify as misogyny. A man calling his co-worker a bitch...yeah, that does.
And based on your in-depth knowledge of progressive gender theory, I'm sure you can explain why you think that.
Does a woman calling her co-worker a bitch automatically qualify as misogyny?
Does a woman calling her co-worker a prick automatically qualify as misandry?
Please explain your thought processes as used in arriving at your answers.
Ya know, I just don't think Prosser used the word "bitch" while he was being throttled.
As to the fact that "officers of the court" were present in the room when Bradley made her moves ...
And, yes TUBBS was called in ...
That anything much will come of this story, ahead.
Because five judges who don't want to be quoted ... are gonna be making the necessary phone calls ... to quash any investigation ...
While I don't think TUBBS is capable. PERIOD.
So, the story ends up being told on the Internet.
Soros overpaid. But doesn't deserve getting a refund, either.
A man calling his co-worker a bitch...yeah, that does. Any regular person (read: not powerful and unaccountable judge) who deployed that kind of language in the workplace would be fired
What sort of "workplaces" have you worked in, Arturo? Academia?
This sort of thing does not happen in the South because many judges carry pistols under their robes. There's even a model of pistol called 'The Judge'. An armed society is a polite society. Southerners are polite up until the point they are ready to kill you. Most Southerners know when they are getting close to that point and back off. Btw, a Southern man would have let her hit him, and never mention it, but everyone would know about it. He would be the winner.
I looks to me like Prosser loves to live close to the edge. These battling females have probably figured that out about him and are using that tendency in Prosser to get him into trouble for going over the line. Prosser needs some serious self control practice before they get him thrown out of the game next time. I blame Prosser.
A man calling his co-worker a bitch...yeah, that does. Any regular person (read: not powerful and unaccountable judge) who deployed that kind of language in the workplace would be fired
Your statement is incorrect.
I'd defend the words bitch, prick, cunt ... in their usual uses as serviceable to convey exactly a nuance that's called for.
It's an art to pull that nuance out precisely in the various contexts they work in, and is a pleasure to read when done accurately. The right words are not easy to find.
Don't suppose offensive words are merely rude.
"What sort of "workplaces" have you worked in, Arturo? Academia?"
I.T.
Remember, these are 'sources' not witnesses, so I'm not sure, Ann, how you can be confident these 'sources' are the same.
I do believe there are a lot of questions to be asked, but I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that Lueder's sources are the same as the WJS. That doesn't mean they may not have been, but it also doesn't mean they were.
My guess: There are at least 6 'sources' giving different accounts of what they have heard happen. If it was truly a witness, why would they wait so long before reporting this?
"I'm presuming you'd concur that for a woman to call a man a prick is misandry and requires similar punishment."
It would certainly be actionable. Bitch is more loaded for obvious historical reasons, but neither should be acceptable.
Like I wrote earlier, there are good reasons why this kind of language isn't tolerated in most workplaces. Tolerating this kind of language means tolerating emotional abuse between employees that can quickly escalate. It means tolerating a total lack of respect for one another. As much as some people here think this is some kind of worthy cause, the truth is that the vast majority of you would loathe working in such an environment.
While you work on your answers to these questions -
Does a woman calling her co-worker a bitch automatically qualify as misogyny?
Does a woman calling her co-worker a prick automatically qualify as misandry?
.. here are some more.
Does a man calling his male co-worker a prick automatically qualify as misandry?
Does a man calling his female co-worker a prick automatically qualify as misandry? Or misogyny? Both? Neither?
What about calling someone "asshole"? Is that Misandry? Misogyny? Misrectumry? Misnanthropy?
Did your college teachers provide you with the skills to think though these question, or did they just tell you that "saying mean stuff to women makes them feel bad, and that's misogyny"?
Arturo - but Prosser being bumrushed is A-ok.
"Freeman Hunt said...
A man calling his co-worker a bitch...yeah, that does. Any regular person (read: not powerful and unaccountable judge) who deployed that kind of language in the workplace would be fired
Your statement is incorrect."
The point should not be that Arturo's statement is incorrect, though it is. The point should be his conclusion does not follow. He claims calling someone a bitch is proof of misogyny, then offers as proof that someone would be fired if they said it at work. Unless misogyny is the only reason one can be fired his "proof" is meaningless.
The only takeaway from his comment is that he does not think logically and cannot distinguish between concepts.
Bitch is more loaded for obvious historical reasons
Oh, go on then, tell us what feminist claptrap they hammered into your skull in college. What "obvious historical reasons"?
What "obvious historical reasons"?
Remember this one: "The bitch set me up."
who has aggressively (verbally) attacked a lady ten years older than himself?
Aggressive Verbal Attack.
I'm not going to scour the Criminal Code, but I'm sure you have the applicable statute to cite, right?
And BTW, truth is a defense.
It would work out great for the GOP if both Prosser and Bradley were forced to resign. Replacing lefty Bradley with a strict constitutionalist judge is an obvious improvement.
What might not be so obvious is that replacing Prosser would also be a win. Prosser spent his whole career in politics before ascending to the Supreme Court. In general, depoliticizing the judiciary is a good thing. Replacing a political judge (even a conservative political judge) with an apolitical strict constitutionalist judge is a step forward. The goal has to be to depoliticize the judiciary.
Beyond that, Prosser seems to be the primary target of the machinations of the lefty justices. This may be because Prosser is not very adept in his responses to the lefty provocations. Why not let Bradley assault him with no physical response? This would have made the case for removing Bradley obvious. Why has Prosser handled the communications of this confrontation so poorly? He just seems over his head and not up to the task of dealing with his adversaries in a clever, advantageous way. They present him opportunities but he doesn't adroitly exploit these opportunities.
Replacing Prosser also gives Walker a chance to put a much younger conservative justice on the supreme court. This would facilitate keeping that position of the supreme court out of lefty judicial activist hands for decades longer.
Arturo said:
"It[a woman calling a male coworker a prick] would certainly be actionable. Bitch is more loaded for obvious historical reasons, but neither should be acceptable."
"Bitch" is historically and obviously more loaded why? Please explicate the historical loadedness of the term "bitch" Herr Professor.
"Arturo - but Prosser being bumrushed is A-ok."
Nope. Never said that. Besides the fact that there's no confirmation of what happened in that room for either individual yet, anyway. However, Prosser has verbally confirmed that he did call his co-worker a bitch in chambers.
it's just "politics by other means" by people not accustomed to accommodating views from outside their monoculture, and with no intention of doing so.
We disagree; you intermediated; it's WAR by other means.
"However, Prosser has verbally confirmed that he did call his co-worker a bitch in chambers."
Has he confirmed the context of that remark? Because I can think of many instances in which that would be an acceptable response.
who deployed that kind of language in the workplace would be fired, or at the very least warned and put on some kind of probation. Quickly.
Maybe because "the workplace" is filled with bitches-with-attitude?
Or ruled by bitches-with-HR manuals?
You, and the Workplace PC Police, are confusing politeness with law. That is, it is NICE to be polite, but there cannot be a law requiring politeness.
However, Prosser has verbally confirmed that he did call his co-worker a bitch in chambers.
Which was accurate. What is your point?
You're assuming this makes him more likely to choke her when you could just as easily assume that she and her buddy were birds of a feather and that bitches would be more likely to rush someone and then play the victim card when defended against.
Tolerating this kind of language means tolerating emotional abuse between employees that can quickly escalate
Well, you gave the honest response: it DOES take two to tango.
In doing so, you also bumped into the truth: Shirley is an abusive bitch, and has mentored her Mini-Me Bradley into exactly the same M.O.
"I did look around Patterico, where I saw Dustin pouring cold water on Stranahan."
Yeah, I have a strong criticism of him.
But remember that Stranahan thinks Dan Wolfe may be a jilted girlfriend of Weiner. No one is sure who exactly he is.
If you got that far (it was a few days ago I was arguing with him) then you surely know that it is not settled or even likely that Dan Wolfe is actually named Dan Wolfe.
This is a threadjack, btw. If you're interested in it, there are a lot of people following this and discussing it actively at Patterico.com (Which is a great blog in my opinion). Personally, I am not really sure what the hell is going on beyond knowing that we don't know who John, Dan, Nikki, etc are.
The difference between that case and this one is that the most important aspect of the story is known, so we aren't really relying on witnesses who are hiding.
In this case, we do not know if Prosser is rightfully described as choking anyone. In the Weiner case, we do know that Weiner lied about being hacked, in a way that hurt innocent people, sealing him as a bastard in the eyes of all decent people.
That's the distinction.
"You, and the Workplace PC Police, are confusing politeness with law. That is, it is NICE to be polite, but there cannot be a law requiring politeness."
There's also no law requiring employment. Meaning, employers are free to develop codes of conduct requiring those they hire to be essentially civil to one another, or risk termination. Meaning you can't call your co-worker a bitch and expect everyone to just shrug. This is also called "common sense".
Anyone who has ever worked with a highly abusive person before understands full well why these kinds of rules need to be in place. I guess a lot of people here have not been put through that kind of experience yet. Don't worry, you'll get your chance one of these days. Everyone does.
There's also no law requiring employment. Meaning, employers are free to develop codes of conduct requiring those they hire to be essentially civil to one another, or risk termination.
Great. So which particular such code applies to judges?
Feel free to start answering the questions people are putting to you.
Anyone who has ever worked with a highly abusive person before understands full well why these kinds of rules need to be in place. I guess a lot of people here have not been put through that kind of experience yet. Don't worry, you'll get your chance one of these days. Everyone does.
Yeah, I do get the impression that Prosser is working with several such abusive people. But if I can intrude a little reality on you, there is nothing to be done (short of impeachment) if Breyer calls Scalia a wop and Scalia calls Grinsberg a kike while Thomas calls Sotomayer a spic and she calls him the "n" word.
Courts are not like your IT department with a Big Brother (or Big Sister) monitoring your every action and dispensing rewards and punishments accordingly.
"Well, you gave the honest response: it DOES take two to tango."
Not always. Sometimes, it's just one person on the end of a string of abuse from another. I had a boss once who tossed off the "n" word and the "f" word daily, made extremely racist and homophobic remarks on a daily basis (in addition to being a screamer who berated everyone in his path). Other than the few times I found the courage to tell him he was out of line, there was nothing I could do. He was the head of the company, and whatever toothless "HR" the place had certainly was never going to touch him. And like I said, he treated everyone like this. I eventually just had to leave. Most people don't have that option.
"Meaning you can't call your co-worker a bitch and expect everyone to just shrug. This is also called "common sense"."
Sorry, this isn't really true for same level colleagues. Calling a spade a spade or a bitch a bitch may be completely appropriate.
For secretaries or whatever, sure, that's not acceptable, but it's pretty sexist to assume the woman is a victim in every case the term bitch is used.
Here's Prosser's line:
"I may have done something but it was initiated by them."
He has a history of this type of stupid behavior. Perhaps he ought not be a judge anymore.
If you got that far (it was a few days ago I was arguing with him) then you surely know that it is not settled or even likely that Dan Wolfe is actually named Dan Wolfe.
I was skimming. I don't know or even care if "Dan Wolfe" is actually called Dan Wolfe.
Why do you care? I can guess why the lefty bloggers care - they're hoping that it will turn out to be Karl Rove.
He has a history of this type of stupid behavior. Perhaps he ought not be a judge anymore.
If stupid behavior could disqualify judges, we'd have very few judges. Besides, if a judge is going to act stupid, I'd prefer that he NOT do it in his judgements. Outside of that area that can be as dumb as they like.
There's also no law requiring employment. Meaning, employers are free to develop codes of conduct requiring those they hire to be essentially civil to one another, or risk termination. Meaning you can't call your co-worker a bitch and expect everyone to just shrug. This is also called "common sense".
What is your point really? Prosser admitted to calling Chief Justice Abrahamson a bitch. Fully aware of that, we the voters and taxpayers of Wisconsin, who are his employer(s), still chose to hire him for another 10-year term. Obviously the majority of us aren't perturbed by his comment.
Note that placing both hands on someone's throat (whether choking or not) is not an appropriate or even natural defensive response to a person charging you with fists raised.
Think about that.
Maybe both of these judges should be sent to time out but Posser didn't act appropriately.
Arturo Ui,
Bitch is more loaded for obvious historical reasons, but neither should be acceptable.
The reasons aren't at all obvious to me. Perhaps you can point them out.
Why is it worse for a man to call a woman a bitch than for a woman to call a man a prick?
Synova as usual is right on the money. Many woman resort to their fists because they no that no one will hit them back. There is nothing you can do. Except take it or somehow try to stop the worst of the abuse.
I am a pretty big guy and woman always thought it was okay to punch me as though I wouldn't feel it. Luckily I have my wife now to defend me. Otherwise with my smart mouth they would be punching me all day long. In fact the next time I see the professor I expect to take a swing at me for the last "Tales of Amy's Garden." Just sayn'
"Note that placing both hands on someone's throat (whether choking or not) is not an appropriate or even natural defensive response to a person charging you with fists raised"
Why not?
I think Prosser is not a hung fu master, and it's actually very natural for people to grab the throat of someone who charges them.
It is AMAZING how hard people try to spin this.
Claiming you know, for sure, that Prosser didn't act 'appropriately' when your scenario presumes he was physically attacked is quite a load of bullshit. If your scenario is correct, he was a saint of restraint not to have her throw in prison... and Wisconsin should demand her be prosecuted. Grabbing a throat in a blink of an eye is a normal panic move.
He's required by the law of Matt to restrain his self defense? As far as I'm concerned if someone charges me with fists, I can shoot them dead. Thank God that didn't happen here, but the idea men must be held to some low response level is asinine. This is an old man, who easily could get his ass kicked by many women, btw. We need to get real. People should be able to go to work without idiots physically attacking them.
Whichever one assaulted the other should be prosecuted. Any quick actions to defend oneself from a battery seem imminently justified.
After all, it's not like he choked her. The account I believe is that he held her back by her throat, and that ended the fight, and the observer noted he wasn't choking her.
She belongs in a jail cell if that's the case. What I hope is that each one of them testifies under oath about what happened.
"
I was skimming. I don't know or even care if "Dan Wolfe" is actually called Dan Wolfe.
Why do you care? I can guess why the lefty bloggers care - they're hoping that it will turn out to be Karl Rove."
It appears you've been skimming my comments here too, if you think I care.
It actually appears you were skimming your own comments, because I believe it was you how decided Dan Wolfe's identity was relevant.
At any rate, we agree. Dan Wolfe's identity doesn't matter much. And we also agree why there's a hunt to find him. As with ACORN and Sherrod, any story Breitbart touches becomes a mad hunt to prove some kind of BS meta narrative that the left will use to cloud the facts. In this case, Weiner's actual lying will be ignored in order to complain about how this was all a right wing dirty trick.
I'm not sure why you keep making an issue of this. I just thought whoever was saying Dan Wolfe was proudly operating with no anonymity should be corrected on that fact.
"What is your point really?"
People here have been defending Prosser's calling his co-worker a bitch. I'm merely pointing out why that really isn't defensible.
Note that placing both hands on someone's throat (whether choking or not) is not an appropriate or even natural defensive response to a person charging you with fists raised.
Think about that.
Nobody, to my knowledge, has claimed that Prosser placed both hands on anyone's throat.
if you have any evidence to the contrary ...
Think about that.
People here have been defending Prosser's calling his co-worker a bitch. I'm merely pointing out why that really isn't defensible.
And you are doing a shockingly inept job of it. I hope you're better at IT.
To briefly recap, it is "defensible" because there is no code against it. It is "defensible" because there exists no body with the authority to censor such a "crime". It is "defensible" because Prossers employers, the citizens of Minnesota, deemed it unimportant.
I won't bother asking you any more awkward questions which you never answer.
"Or did (Leuder) snap up the useful version of the story and run with it? It just doesn't add up to me."
Oh, I think you've added it up pretty good, Ann.
Leuders seems incurious. He's refused to engage in the comments besides this non-denial denial.
He has refused to re-interview his original three sources to tell us whether they misled him originally (if they did, he should name and shame them).
It is appearing more and more likely that this was a coordinated hit job involving libel with malice aforethought on the part of Bill Leuders.
He had better redeem himself very quickly, or he's going to find himself fighting for everything he owns in a court of law.
"Our goal from the start has been to be fair and accurate."----Bill, you are funded by George Soros, which means your mission in life is to take down conservatives using any means necessary. So please forgive me if I call bullshit.
I'm not sure why you keep making an issue of this
You seem to the one who can't let it go, Dustin.
It actually appears you were skimming your own comments, because I believe it was you how decided Dan Wolfe's identity was relevant.
You're starting to irritate me.
garage mahal or one of the lefty commenters make a big stink about how poor Anthony Weiner was brought down by "anonymous" twitter users. I responded that such was not the case.
He then made the claim that nobody knows who "patriotusa76" is. I replied that according to Big Government, his name is Dan Wolfe.
It is at this juncture that you and that twit Lincoln jumped all over me for whatever reasons of your own.
But I'm gratified to hear that you don't care about this issue, and will now, at long last, presumably cease hounding me about it.
Otherwise I'm going use some words which will make poor innocent Arturo swoon.
Sorry, this isn't really true for same level colleagues. Calling a spade a spade or a bitch a bitch may be completely appropriate.
This is true.
People here have been defending Prosser's calling his co-worker a bitch. I'm merely pointing out why that really isn't defensible.
No, you're trying to say that it isn't defensible, but it is. It is simply untrue that that sort of thing results in an automatic firing or even an automatic reprimand. Heck, I've seen it done where the person who was called the name ended up having to apologize.
The Chief Justice needs to be immediately subpoenaed by the Legislature and asked why she did not file a police report in a case that she claims was assault and battery.
And then she needs to be impeached for her failure to do so.
Watch how quickly Bradley's story reverses itself. Watch how fast the Obama Party starts to backpedal.
And then nail Bradley to the wall for lying, and the Chief Justice for enabling the lie.
"It is simply untrue that that sort of thing results in an automatic firing or even an automatic reprimand. Heck, I've seen it done where the person who was called the name ended up having to apologize."
Hey, good luck with that. Maybe it can even be parlayed into a promotion!
Hey, good luck with that. Maybe it can even be parlayed into a promotion!
I thought that IT people were supposed to be somewhat intelligent. But all you do is emote and snark. If you have a rational thought in your body it has not made the transition to this page.
"But all you do is emote and snark."
Hey, it's good enough for Slashdot!
"The Center recently unveiled a project, funded by the Open Society Institute, to "shine a light into the operations of Wisconsin's government."" Guess who funds the Open Society Institute? GEORGE SOROS!!! Now put all of this in that context and you will have more information for those who do not live in Madison to understand where Bill Lueders is coming from.
Recall that OSI has been pushing "appointed" jurists.
There's a long-range strategy here, too.
FYI in a wrestling movement the attacker's head is often leading the charge, and blocking the head is the counter move. If the arms and legs and chest are not available then either the head or the neck being two handed pushed away will divert the force. Wrestlers necks become their strongest muscles, after their thighs, because they control the head which can be a leverage weapon imposing direct or leveraged force. This wrestling style is seldom seen on TV except in the NCAA matches. I wonder if Prosser was a trained amateur wrestler. Many small men become wrestlers. These counter moves become instinctive and require no thought process.
Here, I'll make it easy.
Have you ever been hit by someone of the opposite sex.
I think that pole, if accurate, would be incredibly one sided.
"The Chief Justice needs to be immediately subpoenaed by the Legislature and asked why she did not file a police report in a case that she claims was assault and battery.
And then she needs to be impeached for her failure to do so."
Yes. Yes.
Unless we are going to allow the justices to send the message that laws don't matter and it's reasonable for them to act like they have battered wife syndrome.
In fact, are there ANY men here who have not been physically attacked by a woman?
I don't know any.
Hey, good luck with that. Maybe it can even be parlayed into a promotion!
I'm surprised that you're so surprised. There's probably a life lesson takeaway for you in there.
She asked him to leave her chamber.
Did anyone ask if he gave her a noogie?
@bagoh, if you mean started ripping off my clothes, then yes I've been attacked.
If you mean assault and battery, not since I took up weight lifting back in high school.
Well, except on the dojo mat. Our sensei believed that women should fight men, which meant vice versa too.
Never mind.
flenser,
it seems like anything anyone does is likely to irritate you. Sorry man. You made a point that Dan Wolfe wasn't anonymous. I simply (and politely) corrected you on this point. I'm not sure why you replied in the wrong about it a few times, when it was easy to verify, or then asked why I care so much, when you're the one who made the argument based on the incorrect fact.
I don't care about this fact, but I was correcting your point, and you seem to be really upset for some reason.
Take a chill pill.
The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.
Makes no sense.
If I witness such a crime, how and why would I care if the perpetrator is upset that I report it?
How could my colleagues object to my talking? Justice demands the story comes out.
Unless the story is just a lie (Bradley's story is a lie).
Can someone please explain why this is not being investigated by the police as an assault and battery?
It appears to be more of the the rants and raves of the libs and their union thugs.
"Many small men become wrestlers. These counter moves become instinctive and require no thought process."
Something else that requires no thought process - when attacked by a female person, aim for the tits and punch hard.
When I left my ex-fiancee, I had her arrested when she hit me...cause loading a car to leave is enough of a headache and if she had a mark on her, I would have gone to jail. Chicks can be darned violent.
Post a Comment