David Thompson
Blog powered by Typepad

« Friday Ephemera | Main | Elsewhere (58) »

March 11, 2012



I wonder if the smiling woman would have behaved that way in a normal one-to-one situation?


From what I see on the posted video it doesn't seem to me to have been a veiled threat. Rather, I think, they were trying to mock Ann for blowing out of proportion a previous encounter (with which I am not familiar).

Essentially they are accusing her of being a provocateur, taking some small incident and portraying it as an attack for political gain/publicity.



Well, the first rule of passive-aggressive behaviour is plausible deniability. Smiling Woman is referring to an incident in which a protestor lashed out at Ann Althouse and tried to take her camera, and as Smiling Woman seems to have read Ann’s blog (hence the animus), she may also be aware of the vaguely sinister ‘shadowing’ of Ann’s husband by protestors, and the elaborate threats to “harass the ever-loving shit out of you all the time,” “we will fuck you up,” etc. If she is, the mocking takes on a slightly different hue. Even Smiling Woman’s use of Althouse’s first name while refusing to give her own suggests a certain… enjoyment of unequal relationships. All things considered, the disadvantage is a little symbolic.

Not the kind of mockery that I would happily indulge in.


“Who’s going to save you when you get attacked?”

Not if, when. Nice touch. Very funny.


Who’s going to save you when you get attacked?”

Mr Smith and Mr Wesson?

John D

Even Smiling Woman’s use of Althouse’s first name while refusing to give her own suggests a certain… enjoyment of unequal relationships.

The enjoyment of unequal relationships is what socialism's all about.


Not so passive aggression...


Easy to do in the absence of paying customers.


Whatever previous incident they may be referring to, there are obvious connotations - that you'd think adults might know about* - when they mention that Althouse might get attacked. All too similar to boys from some mob paying you a visit, concerned that you might have a 'nasty accident' if you don't comply with their wishes.

The friendly girl may not have meant it in a deliberately threatening way - in which case she is being very clumsy. And how her friends smile!

* there will be faux-naif denial all round of any threats.



“…there are obvious connotations…”


To clarify, I’m not suggesting that Smiling Woman’s comment was a veiled threat about anything that might happen then and there; I’m not suggesting a crime was being considered - more that it was a supposedly ‘playful’ intimation intended to discomfort in a particular way given past events. I don’t think the perceived creepiness is accidental.

The fact that Althouse reported on the protestors’ ugly tactics week after week and drew them to wider attention is the reason she’s recognised in the first place. And so I think you have to ask whether Smiling Woman might also be aware of the elaborate and detailed threats that were made - the warning that Madison is now “a union city,” the promises to get “as close to your house as we can every day,” etc. As Smiling Woman has obviously read Althouse’s blog and knows something of her husband, his appearance, name, etc., I’d say the odds are good that her comment isn’t an entirely innocent one.

If some raving nutjob blows a vuvuzela right in your face, hits you with it, then scuffles with you and hits you again as he tries to take your camera, that’s assault. It wasn’t a major incident in the great scheme of things, but I’m sure it was unpleasant and intended to intimidate. Smiling Woman’s male companion can be seen passing nearby at the protest during which Althouse was assaulted. Perhaps he saw it. Perhaps he thinks that a woman being intimidated then hit is amusing. And if Smiling Woman and her friends do know about these things, the comments about being attacked again take on a slightly different connotation.

Rich Rostrom

Mobs tend to embolden their participants precisely because of the sense of physical power and the promise of moral anonymity, and the implicit threat that violence can ensue should their wishes be frustrated.

These tactics are straight out of the Blackshirt/Sturmabteilung playbook. These latter-day fascists are restrained - just enough to evade arrest - but they want the same outcomes: forcible suppression of opposing views and compliance from officials.



At Wisconsin and throughout the Occupy pantomime, we’ve seen some pretty unpleasant psychology, all given license by altruistic blather. This small incident – in which, unlike many others, there’s no actual violence – sums it up. I mean, if you want to display your moral credentials and your entitlement to other people’s earnings, what better way to go about it than by hiding your face, blocking fire exits and taunting a woman in a wheelchair?

All while chanting, “this is what democracy looks like.”


Interesting that the threatening woman's mindset is that, should a person be attacked, then it is unlikely any one near at hand would come to that person's aid. It is, of course, the classic left approach in that all people –– once they are of an agreed mindset -- can behave in only one way, and that way is the approved, regimented fashion as dictated by the collectivist dogma.

The normal instinct of a human being is to aid those in trouble first and question politics later, if any. The collectivist approach however is to apportion the likelihood of assistance on a pre-determined path. "You won't get help if you need it, because you are not one of us," appears to be the message. It may be a message that makes the unified mass feel safe in their determination to change the world (or more likely change their personal greed and ambition) but requiring the hive to approve before assisting tells us more about the left than many of us like.

Who’s going to save you when you get attacked?”

Mr Smith and Mr Wesson?

Posted by: Corsair | March 12, 2012 at 08:35

Colonel Colt


Ann voted for Obama. These are her people threatening her. I wouldn't get involved. Let them settle their internecine squabbles among themselves.

Andrea Harris

"Ann voted for Obama. These are her people threatening her. I wouldn't get involved. Let them settle their internecine squabbles among themselves."

Ah yes, right wing "our team or nobody" stupidity: Helping Leftists Get Into And Stay in Office For 100 Years.


"right wing"

If you would stop Kaplan from assassinating Lenin, Mercader from assassinating Trotsky, and Staffenberg from assassinating Hitler, just say so plainly. For myself, when neo-Communists like Ann and real Communists like the Occucommies fight, the best outcome is mutual annihilation, which should be encouraged by means subtle.

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.