Althouse: "If Ann Althouse was assaulted, so was Justice Bradley. Or, if you prefer, if Justice Bradley wasn't assaulted, then neither was Ann Althouse."

August 28, 2011

"If Ann Althouse was assaulted, so was Justice Bradley. Or, if you prefer, if Justice Bradley wasn't assaulted, then neither was Ann Althouse."

Crazy-ass thread hijack over at Blaska's, by one Jeremy Schultz. Meade pushes back, as do other commenters. It's interesting to me, as a law professor, to witness this struggle with analogies. When people are pig-headedly committed, politically, their efforts to grapple with facts are comical... or irritating — depending on your emotional orientation. Me, I'm serene, even amidst the anti-Althousiana, especially when Meade is on task.

(Click on the relevant tags if you need more information on the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" allegation or the attack I recently experienced. Note that I didn't charge or rush up to the man who attacked me, nor did I evince anger or order him to do anything.)

43 comments:

laddy said...: I'm always amazed how some people can be so far removed that they exist in a world where up can also be down and right can also be left. Amazing and troubling at the same time.; 8/28/11, 1:05 PM
Peter Hoh said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/28/11, 1:07 PM
Alex said...: Aren't ya'll such victims.; 8/28/11, 1:08 PM
Brian Hancock said...: The Ithmus writer may have cognitive bias, possible based on his politic belief system, that he is not self aware of so he is able to draw such a ridiculous conclusion.; 8/28/11, 1:10 PM
Humperdink said...: Logic escapes these people. Throwing pearls before swine..... don't waste your time on them.; 8/28/11, 1:11 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Jeremy offers a flawed analogy. Or, if you prefer, Jeremy's analogy is flawed.; 8/28/11, 1:12 PM
Palladian said...: Is every internet entity named Jeremy a total asshole?; 8/28/11, 1:13 PM
JAL said...: Ahhh.

Your serene blogess.

Sometimes you do pull it off. ;-); 8/28/11, 1:14 PM
Palladian said...: Alex said... "Aren't ya'll such victims."

No, but we do wish you were a victim of something.; 8/28/11, 1:14 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Brian, I think you are confusing the Ithmus writer with the commenter. I made the same mistake.; 8/28/11, 1:15 PM
Brian Hancock said...: @Peter

Thanks. Meant the commenter. Reamons; 8/28/11, 1:18 PM
Tully said...: Some people live in their own imaginary worlds, where reality is what they want it to be.

In the real world, reality doesn't care. It is what it is.; 8/28/11, 1:22 PM
Peter Hoh said...: I think Jeremy is trying to argue that an assault is only "real" if charges are filed and/or the assaulted person seeks medical attention.

It's a specious argument.; 8/28/11, 1:23 PM
Writ Small said...: I was going to come to Ann's defense, but then I read this by Meade at the linked site:

Jeremy Schultz,

Are you saying Justice Prosser rushed Justice Bradley and twice tried to snatch her camera? That Justice Prosser's gripping hand had to be pried off Justice Bradley's arm?

Or are you saying that Ann Althouse, when she put her hands up to protect herself from being repeatedly struck by the solidarity singer protester's vuvuzeula, unintentionally made contact with the solidarity singer protester's warm sensitive neck?

Because, if that is what you are saying, then yes, the two incidents are exactly parallel.

Nicely put.

Someone else made Jeremy's comparison on an earlier Althouse thread, but it didn't generate a single response, presumably because it's such a pathetically weak argument.; 8/28/11, 1:23 PM
traditionalguy said...: Wait until the NYT rents the house next door and gets a FIA release of Althouse E-Mails.

What's a false analogy or two?; 8/28/11, 1:24 PM
Quaestor said...: Wait until the NYT rents the house next door and gets a FIA release of Althouse E-Mails.

I hereby volunteer to search the Ann Althouse archive for the salacious bits. Are you there, Pinch?; 8/28/11, 1:30 PM
cboldt said...: They typically make up the law as they go along, too. Like "there is a duty to retreat when a person makes an unwelcome advance." Not so. Black-letter civil tort law says a person can make contact in order to ward off an unwelcome advance.
Bradley initiated the entire chain of events by implementing her decision to rush at Prosser.; 8/28/11, 1:31 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Ann, being really assaulted by an agitator is not the same thing as what Ann Walsh-Bradley "said."

As a matter of fact, it's a tragedy that Ann Walsh-Bradley, who should have known better ... gets away without anyone pressing her on FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGES!

I know you go to the Capitol Building in Madison A LOT! Maybe, if I could recommend only one thing ... I'd recommend that you use your BIG FISHEYE LENS ... and snap a few pictures OF the crowd.

And, please be careful!

(I'm also hoping that Governor Walker takes this matter very seriously. Where it's OBVIOUS that TUBBS is not suited to run anything. Let alone a police department! But his incompetence will be covered by the Dane mash-up of DA and judges ... Just like SUMI.)

THERE. IS. NO. SAFETY. NET. IN. PLACE !! Just a lot of clowns at the circus.

Heck, if you fell down? I'll bet with MILITARY PRECISION ... the crowds will shout that you had a heart attack. If you've got a broken arm? Or a broken nose? They'll blame it on the sidewalk assaulting you.

Here. Let me help out: GOVERNOR WALKER! YOUR ASS IS ON THE LINE! If you can't get the State Police to watch out for the safety of people on the streets ... your career will go KAPUT. No, you can't grab a red balloon.

And, you don't need to do anything in public. You whip those who serve you into place. By looking like a character than can win re-elections.

And, there are no dead people around the Capitol ... who agitate and then run away.

Stealing Ann's camera out of her hands should exactly count for points, in your universe, Mr. Governor.; 8/28/11, 1:39 PM
somefeller said...: Is every internet entity named Jeremy a total asshole?

No, but the bass player in every mediocre alternative rock band is named Jeremy.; 8/28/11, 1:47 PM
Meade said...: Jeremy Hillary Boob, PhD.: If I spoke prose you'd all find out / I don't know what I talk about.; 8/28/11, 1:52 PM
Bender said...: When people are pig-headedly committed, politically, their efforts to grapple with facts are comical... or irritating

Witness the dictatorship of relativism.

Facts? Truth? Who needs them?; 8/28/11, 1:53 PM
jimspice said...: It is absolutely possible to compare apples and oranges; they are both fruit.; 8/28/11, 1:58 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Jeremy left and took his comment with him?; 8/28/11, 1:59 PM
damikesc said...: Is the Jeremy crapping up the thread there the same one who does it here?

Also, what if somebody doesn't feel that Bradley is worthy of respect?; 8/28/11, 2:00 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Meade, I thought you spoke Green Thumb. And, I thought this is what reached Ann's heart. Among other things.

(She can't call you Lawrence because that was her other husband's name, I think.); 8/28/11, 2:01 PM
Writ Small said...: Let's also compare how law enforcement was involved.

Ann called for help including saying "Police!" during the assault. This showed she was genuinely afraid, caused the assailant to flee, and brought help first from her companions and later from the police. Smart move. Later, when the police arrived, she showed a very (overly?) Christian attitude by not pursuing the matter. And not, I hasten to add, because no crime was committed.

Bradley, in contrast, did not call for help at the time of the incident. During the police interview, when asked if she feared for her safety, Justice Bradley replied, "not really." Bradley's testimony After the incident, Bradley then contacted law enforcement to pursue the matter. She never made the simple statement that no crime had been committed, but rather left hanging the implication that one had. Even upon the full release of the report, which shows her own instigating role and prior violent action, and which clearly shows no crime was involved, Bradley has made no apology - much less shown anything like a forgiving attitude.

Really the contrasts are quite illuminating.; 8/28/11, 2:30 PM
Mark O said...: Progressivism is a religion and, thus, is not subject to factual attack.; 8/28/11, 2:32 PM
pellehDin said...: Jeremy is absolutely correct - if and only if you substitute "Justice Prosser" for "Justice Bradley".; 8/28/11, 2:46 PM
ndspinelli said...: Carol Herman is not only an idiot..she's also a kiss ass.; 8/28/11, 3:06 PM
Robert said...: Could the similarity between the two events be a subsequent effort in each case, on the part of people at or near retirement age, to blow a minor altercation totally out of proportion?

That's what it looked like from 2,000 miles away.; 8/28/11, 3:11 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: The problem is your wording. You keep claiming to have been "attacked" or "assaulted" or "threatened" when whatever happened rarely comes close to those terms - as I know them anyway. A guy reached for your camera and tried to get it out of your hand - that's hardly an assault. A violation of your personal space, clearly. An attempt at theft, maybe. But an assault? Give me a a break.

It's as flimsy as the choking charge against Prosser.; 8/28/11, 3:25 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: It's even worse the way Reynolds jumped in an encouraged the idea of you being "assaulted." You guys are definitely using this online fame to your ends.

It's kind of hard to see the point of developing a new media if you're going to be just as disingenuous as the old one.

Just sayin'.; 8/28/11, 3:27 PM
DADvocate said...: Is Jeremy a descendent of Sgt. Schultz? Facts and truth never matter to those types. Imposing their fascist world view is what matters.; 8/28/11, 3:44 PM
gerry said...: It's your serenity that I admire most. Because I DON'T FREAKING HAVE ANY ANYMORE.

Thank you.; 8/28/11, 4:20 PM
Carol_Herman said...: I dunno. I think if someone tried to grab a camera out of my hands, I'd be pretty upset.

And, I'd call out, too.

Bradley, on the other hand, went over the bend! She got to write her script. (It didn't sell.)

While Ann could have gotten hurt!

Would it have made more sense just to let go of the camera?

Isn't that what hindsight is supposed to provide?

Bradley didn't get in trouble for filing a false criminal report.

And, Ann didn't get justice!

Instead? We saw Officer Calhoun making a very inappropriate police sort of statement that doesn't ring true.

And, we had David R. Graham come and explain how agitators work in pairs. And, there are also pairs who work the "lookout." (Did you think I'd say parimeter guys?) Why get technical?

It could'a been much worse!

Chris wasn't hurt! Just keep in mind he was fast enough to help his mom. And, then the situation cooled down.; 8/28/11, 4:43 PM
Troubled Voter said...: I've said this before...when did this blog become so self-obsessed that it stopped being thoughtful? Can you please be a thoughtful commentator on others again, instead of the center of your own (ever-increasingly) boring narrative.

i really, really once enjoyed this blog, and encouraged my friends to read it. that kind of embarrasses me now.

also, your camera got swatted away. get over it.

this is not intended for any of the insanely polemical commenters, so please just ignore this, thanks.; 8/28/11, 4:54 PM
Cody Jarrett said...: Carol Herman's not only a kiss-ass, she's also an idiot.

wv: hydrants

HA! Watching an episode of Emergency streaming from Netflix, and there's hydrants. I had to use it!; 8/28/11, 5:04 PM
edutcher said...: If Ann Althouse was assaulted, Madison would look like one of the Sacketts had been shot.

(Troop understands); 8/28/11, 5:04 PM
wildswan said...: Ann Althouse was attacked; so was Justice Prosser. It isn't just about Althouse or Prosser; next year the show goes national. The type of thing that happens in Wisconsin these days will happen nationally over the next few years because reforms of the Wisconsin type will be implemented and the union/liberal front will repeat all their tactics.; 8/28/11, 8:10 PM
ALP said...: "When people are pig-headedly committed, politically, their efforts to grapple with facts are comical... or irritating — depending on your emotional orientation. Me, I'm serene, even amidst the anti-Althousiana, especially when Meade is on task."

Serenity Now! Please tell me how one orients their emotions away from irritation and towards serenity when dealing with the pig headed. I truly want to know. I find such people so terribly irritating. Is it because you are a mom and thus have practice in tuning out irrational childish behavior - such as might be displayed by a four year old? I am in awe.; 8/28/11, 8:18 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: ALP,

"Me, I'm serene, even amidst the anti-Althousiana, especially when Meade is on task."

Serenity Now! Please tell me how one orients their emotions away from irritation and towards serenity when dealing with the pig headed. I truly want to know.

Can't you read? You let the man take all the risk. They're disposable. You get a new one when the mood suits you. It's all very Praying Mantis-like. Equality to an outspoken feminist is an amazing thing to behold:

I bet you'd NEVER hear Synova or Freeman Hunt speak that way.; 8/28/11, 10:33 PM
Jim S. said...: I don't see where he shows, or even tries to show, that the two cases are parallel. Other than that they're both alleged asaults that is.; 8/29/11, 2:09 AM
Saint Croix said...: I think it's an interesting analogy, actually. I know my first reaction to the assault on Althouse was, "oh man that's horrible!" And my reaction to the "chokehold" story was that I was dubious. So am I biased?

Maybe. I'll try to be objective.

What are the similarities between the two events? Both assaults involved an unwanted touching on a woman. And neither woman wanted to press charges. And both women used the media to publicize the attack. And while both incidents legally qualify as an assault, both are also very minor. No bruising, no blood, no signs of an attack. Ask the women of Darfur or Bosnia if either of these women were actually assaulted.

Okay, what are the differences?

The Althouse incident occurred on the street. The man was a total stranger. He came up to her and tried to grab her camera. The Althouse attack involved censorship, among other things. I got a fascist vibe of somebody trying to stop the (citizen) media.

The Bradley-Prosser incident involved two judges in an office. They knew each other well. They didn't like each other. They had a heated discussion. Bradley wanted Prosser out of her office and jumped up and raced to him with raised fists. He blocked her with his hands and made contact with her neck.

So one big difference, Althouse was innocent of assault. (Did Althouse assault anybody? Unless you're willing to argue that, analogy fail).

I wouldn't call either Bradley or Prosser "innocent." Both share the blame for the actual incident. They were yelling and they lost their temper. Bradley charged Prosser and he put his hands up and pushed her out of his space.

If Prosser's action is justified, it's not because he didn't touch her--he did--but because he was defending himself.

More differences. Althouse never exaggerated the attack. She described it accurately.

The attack on Bradley was exaggerated. It was alleged there was a "chokehold." Which sounds like an attempted strangling. But there was no chokehold.

So the Althouse incident was honestly reported (on the internet) while the Bradley incident was dishonestly reported (by the mainstream media).

So I would say that Althouse acted honestly and openly. And whoever alleged a "chokehold" on Bradley acted dishonestly and secretly.

What makes both these cases interesting is not the physical contact (which was di minimis). What makes these cases interesting is the media.

Althouse annoys liberals because she is new media. They want to shut her down. That's what that assault was about, a physical manifestation of an urge many liberals have.

Liberals always have access to the liberal monopoly of the MSM. Can Althouse call up some ideological pal in the press, spin an untrue story, destroy a reputaton, and keep her name off the story? No she cannot.

Liberals want to shut off the new media in order to keep their monopoly on the old. So while these "assaults" are minimal as crimes, they do showcase to a wonderful degree what is going on with the media in this country.; 8/29/11, 9:56 AM