In "Shark Attack," a new story in The Stranger, ace reporter Erica Barnett did the due journalistic diligence, and spoke with almost everybody involved. They even got a picture of Steffany Bell the waitress in the center of this shitzkrieg.
(photo: stefan sharkansky- why is this man laughing? -seattle post intelligencer)
The Sharkanskys public image is still in tatters.
We're still in a little shock by this big little story so totally avoidable by the Sharkanskys. That Stefan, alleged to be a smart political operative pulled this power play in the first place is astounding enough- but, Stefan, Stefan, Stefan:
a) why are you such a dick?
b) why did you ever think this would pass under the radar of the media? You're a controversial, hardball, partisan activist- your very public Web face is perused closely. If you have a Google alert on yourself- do you think nobody else does?
c) out of the other 999 ways you could have handled this, why did you pick the one you did?
d) when you're in a hole why keep digging? and digging?
After Kos picked up the story, it went viral. Wonkette got it; Facebookies came by the thousands, MySpacers hooked up. Striking a chord deeper than the one favored by the partisan chatterers we usually pander to, restaurant servers, bussers, dishwashers, students- big people in little jobs were moved by this simple narrative of power vs powerlessness.
Stefan and Irene lost in the court of public opinion- and we're afraid there are no more appeals left. A suggestion for the Sharkansky karma: this is the 21st century- you might try tipping 20%.
Typical cheap-ass winger.
Posted by: Rick | August 29, 2007 at 07:45 PM
Sharkansky's kid is pure evil and Stephen is probably a "poofter" like Larry Craig.
Posted by: coiler | August 29, 2007 at 07:54 PM
This story won't go away. It would have been better that Shark did not publicize it- now he knows. Especially with certain jackals that are just waiting for an opportunity like that to pounce on a conservative blogger.
I'd venture to guess that most people do not tip more than 15% (if that) unless the service is good or excellent.
Posted by: KS | August 29, 2007 at 10:26 PM
And no matter how many times he or his supporters keep trying to say its about the tip, someone will try to remind them that most people say the waitress was in the wrong to post but that the Sharkanskys' actions were far worse.
Its about proportionality and the fact that for an offense most people would consider fairly minor, Sharkansky went about systematically trying to destroy the woman's life.
It transformed from a story about someone try to clear their name from a charge that few heard about into a story about the lengths the Sharkansky's would go to to get revenge.
It became the Hatfields and the McCoys. Only the McCoys were only armed with pea-shooters and the Hatfields had just shy of thermo-nukes.
It showed the true character of Stefan Sharkansky and his wife.
Posted by: Michael Caine | August 30, 2007 at 12:54 AM
MC: What exactly were the 'lengths' Sharkansky went to to 'get revenge?' His wife called the restaurant to say that SB was blogging nasty stuff about customers. She did not request that SB be fired. No 'lengths' there. Sharkansky posted some of SB's crazy writings, HER WRITINGS, presumably to show her lack of credibility. No 'lengths' there. The 14-yr- old sister of the 5-yr-old boy visited the restaurant and briefly talked to SB. No 'lengths' there.
What 'lengths?'
Posted by: wutitiz | August 30, 2007 at 01:17 AM
wutitis . . .you belie your name. It is what it is: Goliath vs. David. The Sharkanskys are getting what they deserve. Can't argue with the court of public opinion.
They're public people and if they choose to remain public, they really oughta get a sense of humor and accept that people are going to gossip. And as public people, they need to present the image they want people to admire; anything else is fair game.
I love blogs. They are the ultimate exposers.
And Klueless, I usually tip 20% and sometimes more. My mom waited tables before starting her own restaurant and she taught me well.
Posted by: joanie | August 30, 2007 at 01:34 AM
MC: This keeps getting portrayed as the big, bad, powerful Shark against poor widdle SB, but in this situation SB had the edge. Shark could not throw bombs and then run back under a rock; SB could.
Suppose that the blue dress story posted by then-little-known Matt Drudge had been false. Would Clinton have just ignored it, given the disparity in between POTUS and a 30-yr-old ex gift shop clerk? Not hardly--Clinton would have had to respond, else the story would have been spread around endlessly, believed by many, and hung around BC's neck forever.
Shark had to respond, or these falsehoods would have spread, especially once they made it onto this blog. Local lefties would forever have labled him stingy and a bad parent.
Posted by: wutitiz | August 30, 2007 at 01:37 AM
Joanie: "court of public opinion"--does that include the posters at other sites who advocate putting spit, toenails, etc. in Sharkansky's food when he dines out. I've seen several such posts and virtually no detractors other than myself. Is that the public opinion we "can't argue with?"
Posted by: wutitiz | August 30, 2007 at 01:50 AM
PS Joanie, Im with you on the tipping. Lot's of times I tip 100%. It makes me feel good and them feel good--a win-win.
Posted by: wutitiz | August 30, 2007 at 01:54 AM
Gee Ph(J)oanie
Since when was the 5 year old child a public person.
The Sharkansky family asked to do it quietly and were blown off by Ms. Bell and Merci.
In this age of DHS, do you really want to let go unchallenged being called a child beater?
What exactly would you have done if you were the Sharkansky family given the above?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 08:01 AM
ph(j)oanie
How would it work in your line of business -not that you would- but lets imagine if you had been blogging about the parents/kids by name in your class. Commenting on their parenting skills/liklihood of being a child beater/calling the kid a monkey.
How would that work out then if you had been 'outed' by an alert parent and asked to quietly retract the story and instead you had blown it off. Just take the story down is all we ask they said it is untrue and harmful to our family. But out of pride you blow it off.
Would the parents then be in their rights to go to your supervisor and question this kind of conduct.
Is it likely that with that kind of misconduct you would have been allowed to keep your job?
Or would you and your employer come to a parting of the ways. AND among your co-workers how would you be viewed?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 08:21 AM
Again, wutitis, it is about power. Shark pus himself out there for all to see. He made himself public. This is all about over reaction. The comments on the other blogs? Can't control 'em. If he had not overreacted, this would have been a tempest in a teapot and would have stayed in the teapot.
He has himself to blame.
Drudge? Tens of thousands of readers - hundred of thousands possibly? Cllinton - celebrity.
Merci - Steffany? C'mon. Neither celebrity nor a readership beyond a few . . . can you deny? Steff's blog a very personal one - one of thousands that only friends visit. Hardly a blog of public record.
Again, an abuse of power and now Shark is paying the price. And the more he and Irene try to fight it, the longer it will last.
Posted by: joanie | August 30, 2007 at 08:34 AM
KS
I think the Sharkansky family was stuck with two bad options. Leave it out there in the blogosphere unchallanged or defend yourself. Once Merci gave the story over here and Ms. Bell/Merci refused to take it down the only option to get her to recant was to fully expose it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Now that she recanted, most people who read through the story get that this was just a political gotcha job gone awry.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 08:37 AM
nice dodge ph(j)oanie but once merci linked to Bla'm it was going to be given a wide readership in the local community. don't be dishonest here.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 08:39 AM
Hey Puts, the Seattle left here are sad the story is false so now to save face with the rest of the nation they are trying to make the Shark family out as mean spirited.
And Joanie,
"My mom waited tables before starting her own restaurant and she taught me well."
Keep your stories straight ok. You are starting to sound like Sparky.
Posted by: nevets | August 30, 2007 at 09:02 AM
hey nevets
they have the losing end of the argument and just want to bring it back again and again. sunlight IS the best disinfectant.
nice to see that the trip (Blaine?) didn't change her too much as we see ph(J))oanie employing one of her time tested debating techniques:
The Skedaddle.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 09:06 AM
Puts, check this out. Joanie asked me to link that "Nixon ordered the national Guard to shoot the College students at Kent state" that I heard on the liar Randi's show and posted here first in June. Well in my investigation of this sound bit, I visited Whiterosesociety.org and started backwards from the date I originally posted it. Well, let me tell you, listening to her is not fun as you may well know, so it took a while to get a couple days down and lo and behold I click the next date and NOTHING. 8 seconds of nothing. Now why is that? Maybe there was something on that tape that Randi does not want to be heard? Like that "Nixon" remark? Something fishy is going on.
Posted by: nevets | August 30, 2007 at 09:21 AM
Randi is suspect and only 'true believers' can take her. I'm sure that ph(j)oanie is getting 'the word' right now off a podcast.
Last year ol Sparky disputed my claim that Randi had made those bush assasination jokes. So I linked it to the newspaper that reported. Of course, she discounted it as 'right wing' so wouldn't trust it. Then I linked it to an mp3 sound bite of Randi in her own voice. Sparky's response was that it was a one time deal blaming it on her staff. I then found another bush assasination mp3 of Randi. At which point Sparky refused to admit she was wrong and pulled the skedaddle.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 09:32 AM
To the sycophants of Sharkansky & Goldy. Stop for a moment and ask yourself, if Goldy had been the one doing this would your current reaction and position be the same. I, for one, would be having the same reaction.
My first reaction when I saw the waitress's post was and continues to be, to shrug my shoulders and think to myself, "That was tacky!" My first reaction to the Sharkansky's response was, and continues to be, "WTF, that is way over the top for the offense given."
If Goldy, or anyone else, had done this I would be just as critical. A person's character isn't just measured by how he/she treats people in an equal or superior social/economic standing but also how he/she treats people with an inferior standing.
If it was someone I knew personally, I would have tried to tell them it was a bad idea from the beginning. In fact, I would now be re-evaluating the level of my association with the person and examining whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern I had previously missed.
(also posted on SP and HA)
Posted by: Michael Caine | August 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM
In my post above, you can replace Goldy with Michael Hood or any other blogger/poster/journalist/person who has stated an opinion on the subject.
Posted by: Michael Caine | August 30, 2007 at 11:09 AM
hey MC
I get what your saying and fully agree that it is useful to take a look at things from a different angle. Reverse it and put in Goldy's name and I would have the same reaction. Trying to put this in an economic context is the only argument that they can make as the facts don't support 'em anymore.
With that said, it's easy to say ignore it when it isn't you or your family that is getting slimed.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 11:31 AM
What awesome powers did the Sharkansky family have? A little bit of sunlight.
Worlds best disinfectant.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I wrote:
"I'd venture to guess that most people do not tip more than 15% (if that) unless the service is good or excellent."
OK - you who give 20% or more as a tip - seems like certain posters ridicule without reading what I wrote in its entirety, which says if you like the service - more than 15% (such as 20% is warranted).
As sure as the sun sets, there will continue to be verbal jabs between the right and the left - it comes with the territory. Yeah, ultimately shining a light or sunshine on if you will on an event like this causes the cockroaches to scurry for cover and also serves to keep the planet in some semblance of order, where justice can prevail.
Posted by: KS | August 30, 2007 at 01:06 PM
gotta agree ks. the sharkansky family stood up and put the light of day on the mess. the original source recanted, merci took down his blog page, the best argument that the other side can make -after the other ones disintegrated- is bssed on some nebulous economic disperity theory as if sharkansky is some powerful media personality.
this whole court of public opinion stuff is also bunk. when engaged they can't even get traction on this website.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Spot on Puts! This is winding down even on the SP blog and with virtually the same conclusion you reached. It got a temp boost from the Stranger article but I think it's 'fizzling'. Well, what HOT topic will next generate so many many posts??? Possibly Thompson's announcement as a 'real' candidate???
Posted by: Duffman | August 30, 2007 at 01:33 PM
hey duff
let's see if ph(j)oanie can carry the load on the next topic. of course, she does have the ever faithful 'coiler', ol sparky, and even some guest agreeer spots by andrew.
Posted by: pugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 01:36 PM
From Sound Politics:
1. I know this has been covered a lot in the blogs, but is really is time to let it go. I don't visit this site to read about a waitress who talked about one of the bloggers. Be the bigger person and don't worry about having the last word. Posted by JW at August 29, 2007 11:28 PM
2. JW -- it's no longer about the waitress and me. It's about how various hate sites continue to twist and distort this story beyond reason. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 29, 2007 11:45 PM
You guys should all just get a room.
Posted by: LeeAnn | August 30, 2007 at 02:25 PM
Lee-Ann
Just three words: Spot on Sharkansky.
Posted by: pugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 02:34 PM
How 'bout we all go out for pizza...you leave the tip.
Posted by: Duffman | August 30, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Also found this over there:
Barnett is a great fit at the Stranger, working under the snot-smearing Dan Savage.
Posted by wutitiz at August 30, 2007 12:25 AM
The Stranger, Hood's blog, and goldy's nuthouse all have one thing in common - they're read by little people who need to act flamboyantly enough to flaunt The Man.
Posted by Steve (was Steve_Dog) at August 30, 2007 08:30 AM
Posted by: LeeAnn | August 30, 2007 at 02:42 PM
BW said it, The Sharks lost in the "court of public opinion". The R's might be unmoved but the D's have yet another reason to vote against the evil Republican menace come the next election cycle.
Even though The Shark isn't an elected official, he confirms our prejudice that motivated Republicans are more often like Tom DeLay, Carl Rove or Larry Craig then they'd have us believe, they'll pretend they have society's best interests in mind, but then they'll use the resources freedom and capitalism affords us for their own evil and anti-social purposes.
Some good arguments came from the stooges who supported Sharky but thankfuly the Sharks came out behind and in that the public good has been served.
Posted by: Andrew | August 30, 2007 at 03:08 PM
Speaking of Larry Craig, Rachel Maddow is going to play the police interrogation tape next.
Posted by: coiler | August 30, 2007 at 03:13 PM
"How 'bout we all go out for pizza...you leave the tip.
Posted by: Duffman | August 30, 2007 at 02:36 PM
hey, i know a nice little place over in Freemont...ask for stephany.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 03:17 PM
According to the bio on Wikipedia:
Craig is married and has adopted the three children that his wife, Suzanne, had from her previous marriage.[6] Through his adopted children, Craig has nine grandchildren.
So, that might put to rest the excuse that "since he has kids he can't be gay." He could be bi-sexual, of course.
I don't care if he does it with his cat. He is just another self-hating gay man who worked hard to pass legislation to make gays second-class citizens. Too bad he can't embrace his sexuality and be honest. He wouldn't have to go looking for it in bathrooms.
Posted by: sparky | August 30, 2007 at 03:35 PM
His defense is defined by his hypocrisy.
Posted by: coiler | August 30, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Sparky, I don't consider you a second class citizen. Now with this statement about Craig having adopted children,
"that might put to rest the excuse that "since he has kids he can't be gay."
Are you saying people are using that as an excuse? I haven't heard that one. And if so, are you also saying all men who are married and have no kids are gay?
Posted by: nevets | August 30, 2007 at 04:04 PM
Steven: "Nixon ordered the national Guard to shoot the College students at Kent state" that I heard on the liar Randi's show and posted here first in June.
Steven, you have me mixed up with someone else. I never said that. I don't know who order anything. I don't think the people shot were even students. Were they?
You and putsie try hard to bully, sometimes I think you lose track of the original context. Just sayin . . .
You are not as malicious as putsie which makes him the bigger bully . . ; and you have a tad more charm, and I would appreciate your quoting or referencng what the heck you're talking about.
Can you do?
Posted by: joanie | August 30, 2007 at 04:18 PM
"I don't care if he does it with his cat. He is just another self-hating gay man who worked hard to pass legislation to make gays second-class citizens. Too bad he can't embrace his sexuality and be honest. He wouldn't have to go looking for it in bathrooms.
Posted by: sparky | August 30, 2007 at 03:35 PM"
I agree with you 100 percent, Sparky. Hopefully people in this and future generations won't be self-closeted/repressed like those of Craig's generation.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 04:27 PM
ph(J)oanie
if you can provide some examples of 'bullying' i would be happy to appologize. i mean that. but it has to be more than disagreement.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 04:28 PM
Craig needs to go - either by his own resignation or by losing in the next election - he's a wierd one. Seems like he has lied to his constituents and demonstrated his hypocrisy.
Posted by: KS | August 30, 2007 at 04:32 PM
Andrew
Just to circle the square and answer the riddle. Recall how we went around about how this supposedly non political person knew about Sharkansky, etc. Turns out that was also a lie. That mystery has now been solved with Merci's own words.
This is what recently Sharkansky posted -with hyperlinks to source from Merci's original blog:
"...Bell says that until the blowup over Gerard's blog post, she "had no idea who Sharkansky was."
That statement is both demonstrably false and also falsely minimizes Bell's responsibility as an instigator of this incident. And Barnett should have known it was false.
The "original version" of Nate Gerard's post proves that Bell knew exactly who I was from the outset. The original post, which refers to Bell's "unedited phone interview" with Gerard, includes several statements that Gerard later deleted from his sanitized version that is still in the google cache. Among the deleted lines:
Meet the Stress: How did/do you know that this was Stephan Sharkanksy?
Blogger/NW Restaurateur: Originally, I sat with him at blogger panel (Washington Youth Council1) when he worked for the Stranger. When in our restaurant, I pretty much knew it was him. He paid with credit card & I saw "Stephan Sharkansky" - positive ID.
...
.
Misrepresenting her as ignorant of my political blogging makes it easier to portray her sympathetically her as "the innocent victim". Nate Gerard's "unedited phone interview" shows more clearly that Bell was smearing a customer as part of Gerard's politically motivated attack. And of course if Bell really did say that she had no idea who I was, and Barnett didn't just pull that off Blatherwatch, then Bell had to have been lying and Barnett should have called her on it.
1: "Washington Youth Council" is presumably a mistranscription of Washington News Council. Bell was a WNC intern in 2005. I attended a WNC blogger panel in May 2005 when I was writing for The Stranger."
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 04:40 PM
Andrew
Just to circle the square and answer the riddle. Recall how we went around about how this supposedly non political person knew about Sharkansky, etc. Turns out that was also a lie. That mystery has now been solved with Merci's own words.
This is what recently Sharkansky posted -with hyperlinks to source from Merci's original blog:
"...Bell says that until the blowup over Gerard's blog post, she "had no idea who Sharkansky was."
That statement is both demonstrably false and also falsely minimizes Bell's responsibility as an instigator of this incident. And Barnett should have known it was false.
The "original version" of Nate Gerard's post proves that Bell knew exactly who I was from the outset. The original post, which refers to Bell's "unedited phone interview" with Gerard, includes several statements that Gerard later deleted from his sanitized version that is still in the google cache. Among the deleted lines:
Meet the Stress: How did/do you know that this was Stephan Sharkanksy?
Blogger/NW Restaurateur: Originally, I sat with him at blogger panel (Washington Youth Council1) when he worked for the Stranger. When in our restaurant, I pretty much knew it was him. He paid with credit card & I saw "Stephan Sharkansky" - positive ID.
...
.
Misrepresenting her as ignorant of my political blogging makes it easier to portray her sympathetically her as "the innocent victim". Nate Gerard's "unedited phone interview" shows more clearly that Bell was smearing a customer as part of Gerard's politically motivated attack. And of course if Bell really did say that she had no idea who I was, and Barnett didn't just pull that off Blatherwatch, then Bell had to have been lying and Barnett should have called her on it.
1: "Washington Youth Council" is presumably a mistranscription of Washington News Council. Bell was a WNC intern in 2005. I attended a WNC blogger panel in May 2005 when I was writing for The Stranger."
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 04:42 PM
Nevets, just be thankful that being stupid ain't painful. You would be in a world of hurt dude.
Posted by: LeeAnn | August 30, 2007 at 04:49 PM
Steven, it really is not worth my time to try to make sense of what you just said. Joanie finds you charming for some reason, so go talk to her.
Posted by: sparky | August 30, 2007 at 05:12 PM
Now, Sparky, I said "tad bit of charm." Let's not go overboard here.
Posted by: joanie | August 30, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Suppose for the sake of argument that Steffany has a political agenda, Stefan got vicious, thus confirming my long held belief that Republicans are vicious.
I've also learned from a quote made by the wife that the Shark's kid attends and elite school. So you have elite blogger, lawyer wife, elite schooled kid versus single mom waitress. This would not be the best fight in which to hit bellow the belt.
Posted by: Andrew | August 30, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Which 'elite' school does a 5 year old attend?
Posted by: coiler | August 30, 2007 at 06:00 PM
Andrew
"I've also learned from a quote made by the wife that the Shark's kid attends and elite school. So you have elite blogger, lawyer wife, elite schooled kid versus single mom waitress. This would not be the best fight in which to hit bellow the belt."
okay, sooooo sharkansky was the vicious one. who really has the political blinders on?
before when we discussed this and we figured out it wasn't about a tip ($3); it wasn't about the conduct of the child (manager didn't say anything that night); etc you would always state that the sharkansky family must have "done something" to make this waitress so angry.
so isn't it likely that it was a political hit job from the begining? if so doesn't that take away from Ms. Bell as an innocent victim in this?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 06:07 PM
Which school? I don't know; the mom didn't say. I suppose you could run a background check and find out!
Posted by: Andrew | August 30, 2007 at 06:11 PM
ph(j)oanie, your not pulling the skedaddle again are you? you made a charge it shouldn't be that hard to back it up. unless of course your unable to. pulling things out your posterior isn't very nice.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 30, 2007 at 06:11 PM