Home > Ann Althouse, Barney Frank, blogs, gay bashing, race, Tea Party > What is Wrong With Ann Althouse?

What is Wrong With Ann Althouse?

Ann Althouse’s blog features many funny and deliberately irreverent observations. I can’t always tell whether she’s being serious, and that’s OK — if not a job requirement — for a blogger. But it seems that her love of blog traffic (of which I’m admittedly envious) has overtaken her best judgment. Her recent post on the ugly racist and homophobic incidents that unfolded at yesterday’s Tea Party protest in Washington, as reported by, among others, that left-leaning MSM outlet known as “Fox News”, is just nuts. Here are some choice nuggets from her defense of the nasty people who hurled racial and anti-gay epithets at several African-American congressmen and at Barney Frank:

“There’s nothing wrong with showing anger at the thing that motivates you to protest. That’s what protests are for! The members of Congress have a lot of power, and they ought to have to hear the anger their exercise of that power is causing. It’s outrageous for them to pose as victims without very good cause. So what if some idiot said a bad word?”

Yeah, so what?  And how do we know that it was just “some idiot” and not a broader swath of the protesters? Althouse has the goods: Her husband told her (apparently he saw everything), and there’s a 48-second video that doesn’t contain any nastiness, posted on her website. Then she concludes, on that basis, that the race card was being played for nothing. “Shame!” (The fact that she actually uses the term “race card” is a problem by itself, but never mind.)

Nice evidence. Let’s look at some reliance  evidence, shall we? Here‘s a story, told by witnesses, recounting how Barney Frank had to call the capitol police to haul away some protesters who were banging on his door, shouting through the mail slot (classy!), and calling him “Homo communist” and telling him, cleverly, to “go homo to Massachusetts.”

Althouse might not know, somehow, that gays live in a society where our physical security is often at risk. (But by saying that, I’m sure I’ll be accused of playing the “gay card.”) Frank might well have believed that people banging on his door, shouting, and calling insults, might be about to do him harm. But that doesn’t seem to have occurred to her.

Later, she added a final inanity to the post, disputing the account that one Congressman had been spat upon by noting that no arrest had been made. Therefore, she’s assuming it’s a lie. What? Perhaps the offender eluded detection, slipped away, or the police weren’t right on the spot — to name just a few other possibilities in the real world of imperfect law enforcement. But she needs to provoke, so there it is.

All of this might be tolerable, barely, but for the willingness she has to post any and all comments, without editing or comments of her own, no matter how horrible. Andrew Sullivan repeated a few of these that her readers had for him this past Fall, and they’re far worse than anything accompanying this story. But some of these are bad enough. . As a law professor and a member of the profession, she should show some minimal discretion. Here’s an example of the kind of comment she allows (this from a reader reacting to a gay commenter’s offense):

Hey downtownload, you dumbfuck of a homo, did it ever occur to you that the more you show your naked hatred of “straights” the more it will be returned? It is good, profoundly good that normal America is getting it full in the face from all the marginal shits, it’s a lesson that will be well and truly learned and never forgotten. A tidal wave coming your way in November, fagellah.

At the least, she might have edited out the more vituperative epithets. But that’s not what drives traffic to her blog.

  1. March 22nd, 2010 at 16:46 | #1

    Hey John:

    If you were a regular at Althouse, you’d know Downtown Lad is one of the most vile commenters in that little part of the internet. And then you choose a single comment like that to try to smear the Althouse blog. You are obviously a typical lying liberal trying to submit “anecdotes” in lieu of factual evidence.

  2. March 22nd, 2010 at 20:10 | #2

    If he’s that vile, why doesn’t Althouse simply bar him from commenting? And I didn’t just use that one example (although one example makes the point); I also linked to Andrew Sullivan’s post with several other such comments, much more vicious. You didn’t click over — which is fine, but it takes the strength from your point.

    And you didn’t even address the first half of my response.

  3. March 23rd, 2010 at 08:49 | #3

    Althouse does not ban commenters. It’s her version of free speech.

    Since I had no interest in the first half of your response, I saw no need to address it.

  4. March 23rd, 2010 at 09:39 | #4

    That’s fair enough. She does remove comments she thinks inappropriate, though. So I’m curious to know what triggers that action. Not a question you can answer, I realize.

    Of course you have no obligation to discuss everything I said.

  5. Moops
    March 23rd, 2010 at 14:19 | #5

    AJ Lynch is telling a falsehood. Althouse bans people.

  1. No trackbacks yet.