Hold the phone.

I wasn't angry about this (disgusted, I'll cop to, but not angry), but did you just say he did NOTHING for SoA?

Nothing?

Thanks, Kevin. I am officially over caring what that sorry excuse for a man has to say about anything.

He's a....boob. Heh.

Talk about BUTT UGLY . . .

Wow. That's really a total asshole maneuver.

Uh, technically he did help a little bit. It was his back and forth with Meryl that led me to donate 50 bucks to hear Michele's views on the female blogger popularity debate.

'Course I probably would have donated the money anyway; so his contribution was VERY weak.

Hardly "going above and beyond to plug them".

Particularly not when he's making money off 'em, no.

I have only a little blog, and I've done more than that. Even on days I'd normally take a break from the computer, I've managed to post just one more "please donate" entry. My contributions may have had no effectiveness, but it wasn't for lack of effort.

You're right ilyka. That statement pisses on everyone who actually took time to work on the Challenge.

I'm not sure what his point is. I personally got a "nice traffic boost" from showing more than just cleavage as the shirtless studmuffin of conservatism at the Evangelical Outpost. Joe even noted that John Hawkins was conspicuously missing.

Wait a minute here. Michele called Wonkette a whore for using sex talk to get attention for her blog. Is it beyond the pale for John to point out that Michele is using a boob shot to get attention for this cause?

It doesn't matter that Michele is doing it for a cause, rather than for her own blog, either. It reminds me of the old story of George Bernard Shaw (some say Chuchill) asking an aristocratic lady. Whether she'd sleep with him for 1 million pounds. She said that she would.

Then he asked whether she would sleep with him for 10 shillings. The lady was outraged: "Certainly not! What do you take me for?"

Shaw responded: "We've already established that... now we're just haggling over the price."

All John's saying is that Michele's being hypocritical for criticizing Wonkette for using sex talk for attention, and then posting a boob shot for the same reason. Whatever you think of the merits of the underlying debate, I think it's clear that John makes a good point on this narrow issue.

As for John whether John's doing "enough" to support Spirit of America, that's ridiculous. As Kevin alludes to in his post, John has no "duty" to support this cause or the other (so the following is not directed at him). Some of the commenters here seem to think he's an ass for not doing more. That's ridiculous. What have these commenters done to help pediatric AIDS victims. Or juvenile diabetes sufferers. Or battered women. Or Tibetan dissidents. Would it be fair to say that anyone who didn't actively support one of these causes is therefore a jerk? Of course not. Everybody has their own favorite causes. Just because someone didn't pick yours, doesn't make them an ass.

As for criticizing John for taking money from Spirit of America for the ad, how do you know this is the case? It may be so (and there wouldn't be anything wrong with it if it is), but perhaps John donated the ad, as I have with their ad that appears on my site.

In my opinion you should close this post. YOU CHECKED? You went to John Hawkins site and did a search to see if he'd done enough? That is appalling. You have no idea what he's done. Are you keeping tabs, asking Spirit of America to reconcile their accounts with you, so that you can report on the good bloggers and the bad ones? If you are not doing that, then you're talking out of your ass and using whatever criteria you want to determine if someone has done "enough."

This is a good cause. Don't ruin it by making it competition fodder for petty blog fueds.

Don't ruin it by making it competition fodder for petty blog fueds.

Right, because Kevin's really the one doing that, hey? It was Kevin who beat a dead horse, Kevin who took a photograph out of context, Kevin who thinks the most pressing issue in blogdom is how many trackbacks he received for tweaking "delicate feminist sensibilities" . . . you know, forget it. Reason is lost on the unreasonable.

Umm...last I checked Hawkins was the one turning it into something. He linked to one of my SOA challenges and used it to call me a whore, more or less. Hawkins is the one fueling the petty blog fueds. In fact, he's starting them, and he seems to thrive on that. Seriously, Connie - all Kevin is doing is calling John for what he is. Go rip John a new one for taking my post/photo out of context just so he can embroil himself in a new controversy for the sake of hits.

John's the whore. He'll sell out his best friend if it means another hit in his stats.

Hey Spoons...fact check. Show me where I called Wonkette a whore.

As a general rule I don't close comments, though I may be switching to a system that closes comments on older posts.

I did not directly address his point - on purpose. Plenty of others have, that's dead horse flogging.

He pulled something out of a contest for SOA that lots of us have worked hard on, to rehash an argument from a few weeks ago, and gave it his own new context while conveniently failing to mention why the picture was posted. He followed that up by saying in effect, "yeah, yeah I've done a lot for the SOA guys too".

Maybe he gave a ton of money personally, but for the last week he hasn't been actively raising money as close to 100 other bloggers have. That's his choice.

I only checked after I read his quote. And as one of the leaders of the 3 teams I have been keeping track of the contributions of my team members, in terms of publicity and solicitations. Our team raised approximately $20,000 over the last week and the three teams raised approximately $50,000. I think qualifies me to talk about who did what.

Hey when did this place become an adjunct wing of DU?

Now we have arguments over who is a more (devoted? patriotic? CARING? OR something) than another? Give me a friggin break!

Sheesh! I think the hanging together or hanging separately comment of Benjy Franklin should apply.

Michele, we can talk about this off the public comments if you like, but the truth is, you have no idea if I said anything to John Hawkins about it or not. It is the same point I made earlier--all of these assumptions about what people have done, have said or will do. I was so angry when I read this post, I commented on it and put up a blog post about it. I have since closed it, because I don't want to taint the good cause of Spirit of America because of it.

Let the market decide. Let the market decide of they like Right Wing News. But this petty blog fueding is ridiculous. If you don't like him, think he's a whore don't link him and don't read him. We don't have to be so cliqueish and get the members of our group to rally around us do we?

If you prefer, go back to fighing AFTER the checks are cashed for Spirit of America. But judging someone on their private actions, counting their hits for your cause, and then SHARING that...

I give up.

I think we could wrap this whole thing up if Hawkins showed us his boobs.

Connie, I'm pissed that John took my photo (my copyrighted photograph, I might add), posted it on his site and did not in any way state the context in which that picture was posted. This isn't really about whether Hawkins donated to SOA or not - personally I don't care what he does with his money - this is about him using me to stir shit up and pardon fucking me if I don't like being used like that.

Step back and look again - John started this shit. I sincerely hope I wasn't expected to sit back and enjoy it.

Look, Im shaving my legs for a buck for the Spirit of America. Does that make me a "sex selling" blogger? Am I a link whore now because my long, smooth legs are to be used to garner money for a worthy cause?

I dunno....

Val that really depends on the quality of your legs, doesn't it?

"Hey Spoons...fact check. Show me where I called Wonkette a whore."

Come on, michele. Who are you kidding? You wrote an entire rant complaining that Wonkette got popular because she talked about sex. When others suggested that you could do the same, you got indignant and claimed that in order to be successful in the blogosphere, women "have to be whores."

In fact, let me quote you directly. Of Wonkette, you wrote:

Oh how cute. She's talking about butt fucking again. Let's link her and marvel at how astute and wonderful she is!

This is why guys have an easier time "making it" or being taken serisously than women do. They just have to write. We have to be whores.
You must be engaging in some pretty Clintonesque parsing to write than and then feign outrage that someone says you called Wonkette a whore.

As for the photo, John's use of it in the way he did would be considered fair use under copyright law. Still, because he's a decent guy, he took it down immediately after you asked him to. Get over it.

Sorry, I forgot I couldn't blockquote. Your quote was:

"Oh how cute. She's talking about butt fucking again. Let's link her and marvel at how astute and wonderful she is!

"This is why guys have an easier time 'making it' or being taken serisously than women do. They just have to write. We have to be whores."

Yea and if you read correctly, my post wasn't really about Wonkette, but about the people who were treating her like Victor David Hanson in a skirt.

And John's use of the photo may be legal fair use - but it was underhanded and motivated by causing a shitstorm and you know it.

If John was a decent guy, he wouldn't be dragging this crap on for no other reason but to cause a stir. If he was a decent guy, he would not have posted the photo in the first place, in the context he did.

And if you can take from my Wonkette post that I called her a whore, then I guess we can take from John's post that he called me the same.

Whatever, I'm done. Hawkins was a nice guy to me until he got popular and decided that the feelings of people he was once friendly with didn't matter when it comes to making a name for himself.

Hey, you're the one who posted a rant about how "sexist" and stacked against women the blogosphere was. Yet, when male memebers of the blogosphere react to this and reject your characterization, they're just stirring the pot.

As for John, he's pointing out that if he believed in the standard you applied to Wonkette (which he explicitly does NOT), then the judgment you applied to her would apply with equal force to you.

Of course, I've made this point already, but you seem not to have read it the first time, so I repeat myself.

And his use of your photo is "underhanded"?!? How, exactly? He posted it, explained why he posted it, gave a link to where YOU posted it, and then promptly took it down when you objected.

Kevin,

Ill have you know that as a Cuban, my legs are HOT by default. Thankyouverymuch.

Umm, aren't ALL blog feuds petty? Kinda redundant there. Everybody chill out and bask in the warm afterglow of an important job WELL DONE.

And Val, have you got a sister? Cuban cigars, Cuban sandwiches, Cuban women - a few of my many weaknesses.

The issue is simple, Spoons, and you're missing the point completely: Hawkins lied. He told his readers that the reason Michele's traffic is up is because she posted a picture that showed her cleavage. The truth is that her traffic was up substantially last week due to the Spirit of America Challenge. Dozens of blogs have been linking to her, some daily. Lileks and Instapundit are only two of the bigger blogs that linked. We can see the links on Technorati, and I'm not seeing how the cap picture did much more than generate a few extra links.

The subject here isn't whether or not Michele called Wonkette a whore. The subject is that Hawkins lied, and while he was at it, slandered Michele. What part of that do you think we should let slide?

You know what, Meryl, I think you're likely right when you state that Michele's traffic jumped in large part because of the pledge drive. If John believes that the picture was the sole reason for the increase, then I think he's probably mistaken as a matter of fact.

That's a far cry, however, from saying "He lied!" (Or are you one who believes that Bush "lied" because some of the Iraq intelligence didn't pan out). I have no idea how many people linked to Michele's site because of the drive alone, and how many people were motivated to link at least in part because of the picture. That's unknowable. Does it matter, though?

Are you asserting -- or is Michele asserting -- that she didn't choose the photo she did because it showed off her clevage? I haven't heard a denial of that, and wouldn't believe one if I did. But the thing is, I don't see anything wrong with Michele's use that picture. Good for her. Hooray. But that's exactly the same technique that Michele denounced as whorish when Wonkette used it.

If you want to say that Michele's cause was more noble than simply increasing the popularity of one's blog, you'll get no argument from me. However, I don't think increasing traffic is an ignoble goal in the first place.

John's point was that after denouncing the "sex sells" mentality when used by Wonkette, Michele turned right around and used it herself. John seems to think that's hypocrtical, and I tend to agree.

As for slander, what slander? He implied that she's a hypocrite. That's hardly slanderous.

And finally, as for "the subject here" not being whether or not Michele called Wonkette a whore, I beg to differ. That's certainly one of the subjects here, and one on which Michele snarkily challenged me with "fact check". All I did was quote her back to herself. How terribly unfair of me.

Can I believe that women actually have both advantages and disadvantages and that sexism is no more a problem for them than for men in the blogosphere, AND that Hawkins is terribly over the top and unnecessarily mean and obsessive and doesn't know when to quit and that his "point" about the cleavage shot is just plain ridiculously stupid?

Whatever good points he's making--and he's making a couple, but then I'm a known masculist so I would say that--he's burying in ridiculous rhetoric and, frankly, a way I sort of resent given all the work we've all put in on this.

Not that anyone else here is innocent of not knowing when to let something go. In fact, I'd say at least a half-dozen of us have been guilty of that at one time or another. ;-)

Spoons, my problem with Wonkette, like I've said a million times before, is that her content was minimal and revolved mostly around whether or not Bush is gay and anal sex. And the blogosphere swooned. It irked me. Doesn't mean I think she's a whore because I certainly don't think that and I believe she knows that.

There's at least one other photo of my cleavage buried in my site somewhere. It was totally gratuitious. John would have been better off using that one because the context of the Sox photo was completley different than what he was driving at.

Sure, sex sells. But I don't use it as a basis to sell my blog. I do believe my blog has already sold itself.

And that's what bugs me about this whole thing, Michele. I basically agree with you about Wonkette. I didn't find it interesting, and I thought certain major bloggers were goofy for being so obsessed with her. If you'd have stopped there, I'd have agreed with you.

However, you went on to wrap up the issue in this whole "the blogosphere is prejudiced against women" phony victimology garbage, and I resented the hell out of it. It was especially galling coming from the proprietress of a wildly successful blog, such as your own.

Funny, Spoons, for someone who's accusing Michele of wiggling out of calling Wonkette a whore, you're awfully willing to let Hawkins wiggle out of having to use actual, provable facts that he didn't make up. In his own words:

"The previous Sunday/Monday Michele pulled a very respectable 7881 daily uniques, but on "cleavage shot Sunday night" & the following day she reeled in 11,301 daily uniques.

You see what I'm trying to get across here? Michele Catalano, who's a very talented blogger, was already pulling a lot of eyeballs. But, she showed a little cleavage and ***BAM*** she gets a nice traffic boost. "

He ascribes the entire traffic boost to the picture. There ain't no maybe about it. He doesn't say, "I believe this is why the stats are up." He flat-out insists that the cleavage shot drew an extra 3,000 hits. Read the rest of the post.

That's a bullshit argument. That's cherry-picking data to suit your thesis while ignoring any facts that dispute it. Hawkins is deliberately omitting those facts. Call it a lie of omission if you must, but it is untrue no matter which way you look at it.

I handed you a perfectly good research tool with which to gauge how many people linked to Michele for the Red Sox hat shot, and how many linked to her for the SOA challenge. It's the Technorati website, which tracks links to millions of blogs. You are ignoring it, and trying to change the subject.

I am not asserting anything about Michele's photo. YOU are trying to change the subject--again. The subject is clear: Hawkins wrote a post filled with untruths about why Michele's traffic jumped last week vs. the week before. He claims that she is using sex to get more traffic to her blog.

Those are lies, and also where I'm basing my accusation of slander. He is smearing Michele's reputation.

Wow, people. I like to read you all, but I'd rather do it on your blogs where you seem a bit more...directional, focused, sane.

As for Spirit of America - think about donations. Occasionally, for reason X or Y, the money's not flowing for everybody. Probably why we (spouse and I) didn't get one in until today (payday's tomorrow). I'd imagine we're not the only ones.

You did a good thing - collectively, bickerers (and I mean that in the most cordial of ways). Focus on that.

hln

This discussion has probably become a tired exercise by now and I have tried writing a follow-up post to the one I first sent but I suppose it would just bring things past this post and I'd like it to stay here instead.

Let's face it: all of us can be accused of whorishness and cheapness for all the efforts we have done. It's so easy. Take effort "A," say that it was purely for hits and traffic, and leave out the part where it was for a donation drive. Makes anyone look like a hitwhore, plain and simple. Talent, time, culinary skill, clothing, collectibles, potentially humiliating acts, all of our sacrifices can be used, by John's logic, as "proof" of the lust for hits and traffic.

Because, as John H. said in the comments to his post ("whether the pic was in a post about a charity or not wasn't relevant to the issue at hand."), the fact that Michele did it for charity was really not relevant. By that logic, just about anything is game. What a sad end to an awesome week.

Because, a