I'm your soul...

"As the example of Nuremberg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold."

"You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future," writes 9/11 conspiracy theorist -- and erstwhile UW part-timer -- Kevin Barrett. He's displeased with the way a journalist covered the recent 9/11 "Truth" conference here in Madison.

The reporter's aim in offering such a wildly distorted view of the conference can only have been to libel 9/11 truth seekers as paranoid -- a task that Isthmus already accomplished last summer, to its eternal shame and perhaps its eventual prosecution.

This libel, like the 9/11 blood libel against Muslims, dehumanizes its victims and makes its author, editor and publisher complicit in the holocaust of the 9/11 wars -- a holocaust that has already killed more than 650,000 people in Iraq alone and destroyed the lives of more than 6 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan by making them refugees.

Paranoid about being considered paranoid, the paranoid want you to be paranoid too.

By the way, the last time I wrote about Barrett, he emailed me asking me to come on his radio show. I said, "No thanks. Sorry." Which I thought was pretty nice, considering. He comes back with: "Guess I'll have to update the Cowards List." With that is a link to a website with "a long list of gutless wonders who have publicly insulted him but chickened out of debate proposals." There, I'm listed as "chatter-blogger Ann Althouse."

My response to that email was one word: "Whatever." Which, again, I think is damned nice, considering. He responds with an insult: "didn't realize you were capable of brevity ; )."

And then I start getting cc'd on email between him and some other character:

I heard UW Law professor Ann Althouse has declined your invitation to be on your radio show.

That's pretty lame. She has been bashing you on her blog for over a year now, with childish comments. And this is a person supposedly qualified to teach UW students?

My ex-girlfriend had her for a professor a few years ago, and her controversial political views showed through according to my ex.

Republicans have some twisted views on the Constitution.

Most republican voters still think Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, which gives you some idea of their lack of intelligence.

Talk about a wacked out view! The hijackers were linked to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, not Iraq. Only a racist would think that Iraqi's were behind it.

Good luck on your radio show.

Note the "you, a law professor" theme. I wonder what my "controversial political views" were. That the states might serve as laboratories of democracy? That Scalia is actually not the devil incarnate? That Al Gore in fact lost the election in 2000, quite aside from anything the Supreme Court did. I mean, what, really?

Barrett responds to his emailer:

You would think that if I were so crazy and my views were so baseless, a law professor of all people would be capable of publicly dismantling me and my views, and would jump at the opportunity.

The fact that nobody on the other side is willing to debate, and their ever-increasing hysteria when discussing the issue, suggests that they know they're wrong, which means that at some level they know they're complicit in covering up mass murder and high treason. No wonder they just ram their heads further and further up their...I mean, in the sand.

Again with the you-a-law-professor.

Funny how he can't think of some other reason(s) why I might not want to go on his show.

I do have some curiosity about how he could still -- after what's gone on in Iraq -- cling to a theory that requires bizarre hyper-competence from the government.

The other emailer responds:

I doubt Ann knows much about 9/11 so she is not going to debate you.

All she knows is that the Arabs did it, which I find a bit racist.

Both the airplane stewardesses on Flight 11 who called in said there were FOUR hijackers on board.

Yet people like Ann insist there were five hijackers.

How does she know this?

Because there were FIVE Arabs on the flight manifest.

Sounds pretty racist to me.

And the stewardesses gave the seat numbers of the hijackers, many of which were non-Arab passengers.

People like Ann presume to know more about went on board Flight 11 than the airplane stewardesses themselves.

Interesting to see the conspiracy mind at work, isn't it? I've never written or even thought about the number of Arabs on Flight 11. Yet somehow I'm insisting. And racist.

Barrett responds:

well if she admits her relative ignorance on 9/11 and apologizes for her ignorant insults we could always skip 9/11 and talk about things we're both interested in, like the Beatles and the Kinks ; )

Again with the emoticon. Are conspiracy theorists always winking at each other. And what's with this pathetic desire to get friendly with me? Yeesh.

I don't feel safe in this world no more.

Your head = my rollercoaster.

"On every level, I'm very resentful... Not of my husband, but of other women who don’t work, or who have a stay-at-home husband."

I can just feel the waves of sympathy rolling in for this woman. She's Joyce Lustbader, a research scientist at Columbia University:

She calls her marriage a good one. She also has the benefit of a once-a-week housecleaner and had live-in help while the couple’s two children were growing up. She did not pursue a tenure track because she wanted to be more available for her children while they were growing up.

Oh, don't you just know the linked-to article is a lifestyles piece in the NYT? Where do they find these people? Bitching at the next table over in the restaurant? You had a good marriage and servants, and you decided you didn't want put in the work to go for tenure. And now what you want to say to the world is that you resent other women?! You made a choice and now you have some regrets. Life could have been different, but it would have to be a hell of a lot worse than that to justify publicizing your resentment, and even then, it wouldn't make sense to blame other women.

“Men lock the door and leave. Things could be a wreck or whatever and it doesn’t affect their other world,” [said NY lawyer Dawn Santana]. “I walk out and worry about the house looking nice, because the kids have play dates, etc. Someone has to worry about that, and it’s usually not the dad.”

You know, someone doesn't have to worry about that. Maybe instead of criticizing the dad for concentrating on work when he's at work, you could learn a little something about compartmentalizing and focusing on what matters. He's right to put a low priority on whether the house looks "nice" when children are coming over to play. Why act like he's the one with the problem? Going into his "other world" -- it's not like he's daydreaming. He's working! It's called work! Try it! Take it seriously.

Helpin u see.

"Every time I look in over there, something so weird is going on that I feel like I just bumbled on to the set of a Fellini film."

Althouse, what are you doing?

"The 'pot de yaourt,' or pot of yogurt."

What the French called the original Fiat 500, the incredibly tiny Italian car originally concocted in 1957, and now adorably revived.

“Like the Mini, you buy it because it’s interesting, beautiful things for the beautiful,” said Martino Boffa, the managing director in Milan of the marketing consultants Icon Added Value. He added, “It’s not functional; it’s a luxury item; it’s a toy.”...

For Mr. Boffa..., Fiat has made the 500 “a national event, saying, ‘We’re Italian, we have saved Italy.’ ” The marketing in Italy, he went on, “arouses national sentiments.”

“There’s a moralizing, chauvinistic aspect. If you’re Italian, you have to buy a Fiat.”...

But will this work outside Italy? Mr. Zurru of Roland Berger thinks so. “At least in Europe,” he said, “the 500 is linked to a cinematographic experience, a model rich in symbolism.”

“You know,” he said, “La Dolce Vita.”

Bat trouble chez Althouse.

That hits a little too close to home.

"Gerson is not the bard of Bushworld but rather a self-publicizing' glory hog guilty of 'foolish vanity,' 'sheer pettiness' and 'credit hounding.'"

Somebody's jealous!

According to Matthew Scully, who worked with him for five years, [Michael J.] Gerson did not come up with the language that made him famous. "Few lines of note were written by Mike," Scully says, "and none at all that come to mind from the post-9/11 addresses -- not even 'axis of evil.' "

What? You mean Bush isn't speaking his own words... and his ghost is now under fire for himself having a ghost? And the ghostwriter's ghostwriter is feeling sad and lonely?

"The narrative that Mike Gerson presented to the world is a story of extravagant falsehood," Scully writes. "He has been held up for us in six years' worth of coddling profiles as the great, inspiring, and idealistic exception of the Bush White House. In reality, Mike's conduct is just the most familiar and depressing of Washington stories -- a history of self-seeking and media manipulation that is only more distasteful for being cast in such lofty terms."

Way to improve your reputation. And thanks for the writing sample! We'll keep it on file in case we create a slot for Director of Adjectives.

Scully recounts the story of the "axis of evil" phrase, which Bush used in his 2002 State of the Union to describe Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Scully notes that colleague David Frum originally came up with "axis of hatred," as reported before. Scully says he suggested changing it to "evil." He does not cite any examples of Gerson explicitly claiming the phrase as his own, pointing instead to news accounts attributing it to him that have gone uncorrected.

Evil has gnawed at him for years. Not actual evil, just the word "evil." He blurted it out 5 years ago. Why doesn't anyone know? Why doesn't anyone care?!!! I am the writer! See me! Feel me! They said "hatred," but I -- I! -- knew it should be "evil"! Evil! EEEEEEVILLLLLL! Ah ha ha ha ha.

The 10 millionth visitor arrived at 7:25 this morning.

I'm celebrating by writing this post before getting out of bed.

Who was it?

Domain Name:(Unknown)
IP Address: 71.190.11.64 (Unknown Organization)
ISP: Unknown ISP
Location
Continent: Unknown
Country: Unknown
Lat/Long: unknown

It's the Unknown Visitor. Like the Unknown Soldier or the Unknown Comic.



Bonus Gong Show clip:



And that's as good as it gets on the old Althouse blog.

If I Don't Get Out of Here I'll Die.

The Vlog!

"Now, it's certainly true that Linda Greenhouse isn't a fan of 'meta-coverage,' i.e., coverage of her coverage of the Court."

On first glance at that photo, I thought she was holding a dagger.

What we're hearing is that Linda Greenhouse wanted to be as free as possible to criticize the Supreme Court's recent turn to the right -- without having to worry about such pesky things as, you know, "impartiality"....

And criticize Greenhouse did, after she had the cameras killed. We understand that Linda Greenhouse had some not-so-nice things to say about the latest SCOTUS Term as a participant on the panel.

During the question-and-answer session, someone asked about the so-called "Greenhouse effect" -- LG's ability to influence the Court through her coverage (due to the desire of some justices, such as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, to win favorable press in the New York Times). In response to this question, apparently Greenhouse said something along these lines: "I WISH I had more influence on the Court, given some of the decisions from this Term!"

ADDED: More here:

Greenhouse said that she had come prepared to speak to a “room of academics.” She added, “I didn’t want to have to modulate my comments for a national audience.”...

Perhaps the longtime Times reporter has grown wary of too much public attention because of the bad press she received last summer after a speech she gave at Radcliffe College....

At the very least, the public was denied the chance to listen in on what turned out to be an interesting discussion. And at worst, a New York Times reporter used the power that comes from being associated with the Times to prove nothing more than that she could get her way.

MORE: Slate's Jack Shafer notes the controversy and asks "Does a reporter have a duty to appear on C-Span?"

CJR's Beckerman writes that Greenhouse may have "used the power that comes from being associated with the Times to prove nothing more than that she could get her way." That speculation would have bite if somebody could prove, for example, that Greenhouse demands that Washington Week's producers serve only yellow M&Ms in its green room as a condition of appearing on the show. But they can't. Greenhouse can be stubborn, but I've never known her to lord it over others. Besides, what sort of diva agrees to appear gratis on a huge panel of colleagues to talk to a roomful of out-of-town academics about her profession? Case not proved.

Egg salad...

Is it wrong to do it this way?

"I've mostly stopped reading Ann Althouse, really."

TRex cannot stay out of the vortex... especially when it's baited with food.

And apparently, I give him "all-over creepy shivers, like someone just dumped a bag of live spiders over my naked thighs." I'm picturing chubby, pasty white thighs. No wonder he sympathizes with Bill Clinton so.

He riffs on what eggs mean to him. It's kind of wistful and sweet really. It sounds like the boy loves his mommy. Ooh, but not that way, no! He dips a little into homophobia territory... probably thinks it doesn't count when he does it. Oh, but it does! It does, T.

Oh, what the hell? Why not have a full-on flamewar? Ellen Goodman thinks we female bloggers aren't sufficiently warlike. And, anyway, I'm not afraid of the doughy little nerd. I faced him down in person. Check it out:



He's afraid to look. Compare how nice his co-blogger was.

Here, T! Here's some candy!



Come on. Take some of my candy!!



Don't be a baby! Fall into the vortex!



IN THE COMMENTS: Joan writes:

The comments section over there is bizarre.

What an odd post. Why the excessive use of exclamation points and question marks? The speculation that Ann is a repressed lesbian is just bizarre, and also, obviously wrong. Ann is grossed out by eating egg salad, you moron! The idea of consuming the "female" symbol (as you've identified it) is abhorrent to her. If anything, that should prove that she's as hetero as they come.

As for the egg being a symbol for the female, I don't know where he got that one. I've always heard that eggs symbolize life, rebirth, springtime. I've never heard before that eggs are the symbol for the female, as if the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth is strictly feminine, or under the control of females.

Wait -- did TRex make this association because they're sort of round, like onion rings, completely ignoring centuries of tradition as to what eggs really symbolize? Sheesh.

Teach that boy some Spanish, starting with huevos.

MORE FROM THE COMMENTS: Christy writes, quite aptly:

I thought his posting was funny. Even funnier is realizing he gets Althouse, but doesn't recognize it. He thinks the Fellini reference an insult? Am I wrong that part of the appeal here is blog-as-performance-art?

Boring comments, though. Althouse wins as a blog salon. The mantle of Madame de Stael rests lightly on her shoulders.

ADDED: The new vlog is -- once you get into it a ways -- about the TRex attack.

UPDATE: TRex falls into the vortex, and I respond here.

"Is Obama over?"

Bob and Mickey think so.

The link is to a segment of a Bloggingheads episode that's worth watching in its entirety, in part because Bob and Mickey are such great diavloggers, but also because they talk about me... twice. The first time is a teaser for a Bloggingheads that I've recorded, but which hasn't gone up yet and which might cause a big sensation. The second time is in the last segment, where Mickey gives Bob a pop culture quiz, and one question is "Jessica or Nick?" and the only Jessica that Bob can think of is Jessica Valenti, whom Mickey can't identify until Bob prompts with my name, at which point -- I think -- Mickey gives me some light support.

ADDED: A link at "teaser for a Bloggingheads" and, from it, a new quote for the masthead.

Any questions?

Give me some subject matter and I just may vlog today... or even podcast...

ADDED: In the comments, Bissage notes a lamppost in my photo and suggests replacing it with this. Simon then produces this picture...



... and Palladian sends me the image with no lamppost, which I've swapped for my original.