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%.
lee-ann
just a thought. instead of 'spell check' perhaps you should have an adult 'content check' prior to posting. it would really cut down on the nonsense.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 01, 2007 at 08:24 AM
hey wutitiz
i guess we know whatitaint and that is joanie being forthright. she demands that other answers her questions but when a simple-on topic- one is posed to her we get a case of the skedaddle.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 01, 2007 at 08:27 AM
I repeat: selective racism. You have said much about yourself this morning. It is "ok to be a racist against some people. That shows amazing intelligence.
Not.
Posted by: LeeAnn | September 01, 2007 at 08:49 AM
if you want to enter the civilized world, you have to stop targeting children and the sick with car bombs planted outside of schools, hospitals, and places of worship.
yep, sure hate to anger those al queda types. so deserving of respect (sarcasm meter set to Stun)
Posted by: PugetSound | September 01, 2007 at 08:51 AM
Lee-Ann
exactly what has Al Queda done that is deserving of respect?
(i'll cop that this should be a straw argument but i think lee-ann is actually serious.)
elucidate, please.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 01, 2007 at 08:54 AM
No, I think I will sit back and enjoy watching your feigned indignation. It is entertaining. And you're so good at it.
Posted by: LeeAnn | September 01, 2007 at 09:08 AM
Wutitiz, you are hopeless. "sticks and stones (rocks, get it?) may break my bones but words . . . "
Different circumstances, different results.
You are like putsie, challenged by critical thinking.
Only difference between you and putsie is he knows more big words: skedaddle; "straw" argument (we've all heard that one more than anybody needs to!); elucidate. Hmm. Wonder if he knows what they mean?
I don't think anybody cares anyway.
Posted by: joanie | September 01, 2007 at 09:10 AM
PugetSound: I hoped that Joanie would respond to my example about rock throwing, since she didn't seem to want to answer the question you posed. I like to think that she's re-evaluated things and is just too stubborn to post it.
It will be interesting to watch how local lefties treat Sharkansky in the long term. Will they allude to this episode whenever his name comes up? Or will they drop it, thus signaling that they know they were wrong. My money's on the former, even though I hope it's not the case.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 01, 2007 at 09:50 AM
Joanie--oops didn't see your response before I posted. I guess I had my answer in advance.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 01, 2007 at 09:53 AM
Joanie--oops didn't see your response before I posted. I guess I had my answer in advance.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 01, 2007 at 09:53 AM
You present hypotheticals and want me to make ass-umptions. I said different circumstances, different results. You don't know what that means?
Sorry, wutsie (rhymes with putsie) but I don't deal in ass-umptions. If you want guesswork, you're talking to the right over-poster.
Now, I'm off to Birch Bay. Wonder how long that will stay in putsie's mind before he starts claiming "skedaddle."
I don't believe this blog anymore.
Michael, we need a transplant!
Posted by: joanie | September 01, 2007 at 09:56 AM
LeeAnn
You are correct to challenge my use of the term ragheads. I should have emphasized al quada rag heads. We are at war with those bastards with the goal to defeat them anyplace in the world before they kill anymore Americans. Our President and military are doing stellar work to achive that stated goal. The idea is to defend our nation from further attack and bring peace to the good people of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the rest of the world.
My apologies to you for not being clear. I firmly believe that all peaceful people deserve respect and prosperity on our little planet.
People who target innocent civilians deserve eniallation. al queda and Muslim extremist are first on that list
Posted by: chucks | September 01, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Hypotheticals are the last refuge of a scoundrel. You try to stack the deck and hope nobody will notice how you've done so.
In this case you simply replaced 'told the truth about certain people' with 'throwing a rock at those people.' Not very subtle to say the least. You're manipulaiton tactics need some work.
Posted by: Andrew | September 01, 2007 at 11:08 AM
chucks, you should be upset with Bush. He had the justification and the world's go-ahead to launch a campaign against muslim extremism and instead he whacked at brush on his ranch and imagined it was Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Andrew | September 01, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Hey, chucks, how does it feel to be among the thirty percent? Lonely?
Well, it'gonna get lonelier.
Posted by: joanie | September 01, 2007 at 11:20 AM
So when a young black man breaks the law it is ok to call him the "N" word? When an Asian breaks the law we can call them Japs or Chinks or Gooks. When a Latino does it, then its ok to call them Beaners.
Not in my world.
Posted by: LeeAnn | September 01, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Andrew,
I am in no way upset with Bush. I agree with him on Iraq, Afghanistan
and the rest of the war. It is not a popular position to take here, I know. Neither war has gone the way we or he wanted. That is the way wars go. We have turned towards victory in the Iraq battle. One day, the al quada leaders will raise their heads out of their caves and our Marines will cut them off.
Unless something miraculous happens with arramadamadingdong, the next phase will be Iran. I hope for the best, but will prepare for the worst. Again, not a popular position. Sometimes reality sucks.
I do hope that if we are stuck with a Democrat POTUS in 2008, that it is Clinton. I do not like her even a little bit, but she does have the brass to carry through to win. She will say anything she has to to get elected, but she will not let her "legacy" be defeat.
Posted by: chucks | September 01, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Sorry LeAnn.
We are at war with al queda. You will not get me to get me to equate small time crooks with folks who are trying to kill me and my family as well as you and your family.
Sorry sweetie, but I witnessed blatant racism in the fifty's and sixties. I hated it, as well as other forms of bigotry then and I hate it now.
You can find a million things to disagree with me on. Go ahead, let's have some fun.
Sorry, but I am working today. If I do not respond quickly, it just means I am doing my job.
Hey joanie, I have been a minority for years. You remember, a conservative Republican in western WA. When was I ever part of a group over 30%. Have fun on the last weekend of summer.
Posted by: chucks | September 01, 2007 at 11:49 AM
You said you used to be Democrat . . . I think so.
The Iraqis are not Al Queda . . . sorry to break the news . . . there are now some in Iraq but they're not the Al Queda.
Vengeance for vengeance sake gives no satisfaction. Why didn't we go after the real Al Queda? You know, the one the Saudis are financing?
Just curious, chucks? Why didn't we?
Posted by: joanie | September 01, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Andrew, analogies, or 'hypotheticals' if you prefer, are a tried and true reasoning technique. I find your point about hypotheticals a case of 'shoot the messenger' (oops that's another analogy--sorry).
And interestingly, your criticism of my analogy, that I replaced "told the truth..." with "throwing a rock..." rests on a hypothesis, i.e. hypothetical, of your own. You say "told the truth," but we don't really know now whether it was the truth. Only Sharkansky and Steffany know for sure, and both now say it was false. You ASSUME that she was telling the truth and presumably recanted under duress. But we'll probably never really know for sure.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 01, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Hypotheticals can be accurate analogies, but my point is they rarely are. Usualy when someone brings it into a debate it's used to throw a curve ball rather than clarify anything, as was the case here.
Since her statement was possibly true, possibly not true, it's definately not a thrown rock. Nice try though, you get a 10 for effort.
Posted by: Andrew | September 01, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Andrew, and speaking of truth, don't you have the slightest problem that she obtained her info under false pretenses. She could have said "I'm Steffany your server, and I'll be doing a blog about you later tonite," and "I'll need your credit card please so that I can ring up your bill, and by the way positively ID you for the blog." She didn't. (another ASSumption, oops, my bad).
Or do you feel this is a case of 'ends justify the means.'
Posted by: wutitiz | September 01, 2007 at 12:18 PM
You are correct joanie. I was a Democrat until mid way through Jimmah Carters presidency. That is when I first saw the light. I saw a comment the other day that Lillian Carter made years ago. Something to the effect "I look at my two sons sometimes and think I should have remained a virgin". Smart woman in hind sight like the rest of us.
Sadam chose war. We just obliged him.
Guess he screwed up more than Bush.
We are still after al queda. We screwed up when we had them in the mountains of Bora Bora. That was a mistake by our military and will be rectified one day.
It is not vengeance to take out a threat to our nation. It is survival.
Posted by: chucks | September 01, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Chucks: interesting point about Clinton(s) that I had not seen made in that way before. Even back in the 90's, when I was as much of a Clinton-hater as anyone, I admired especially Bill, but also Hill for being fighters. When people carped about having BC as commander in chief, I used to point out what a fighter he was, and that I would not be that fearful of going to war w/ him. Most pols would have folded after the blue dress. Larry Craig folded in less than a week, with no stained blue pants.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 01, 2007 at 12:35 PM
andrew
nice to see you back.
joanie
you say your off to birch bay but continue to post. don't let us hold you up.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 01, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Even if the waitress deserved to be fired for recounting work place events on the internet, I'm ultimately disgusted by the Sharks doing the same thing to her in delivering damaging information about the waitress into the hands of people responsible for writing her paycheck, and then claiming some moral highraod bullshit about protecting their five year old from defemation, as if that's even possible. A five year old doesn't have a public image to defame in the frist place. Anybody who doesn't realize how this behavior is becoming of assholes is probably an oblivious asshole themself.
Posted by: Andrew | September 01, 2007 at 05:21 PM
andrew
glad your back for some more.
of the two, which one gave adequate warning to the other prior to putting it out there in a public forum?
which one printed true stuff that was already published on the 'net and had no reasonable expectation of privacy?
which one recanted?
puzzle those answers out and you have the answer as to who was the ultimate victim.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 01, 2007 at 07:22 PM
I already explained that they shouldn't have did what they did if they wanted to claim a moral high road, so wether they warned her before doing so or not is beside the point.
I don't think the Sharks have a reasonable expecation of privacy AT A RESTAURANT of all places.
There's no question that the waitress posted personal info online and had no expectation of privacy, the question is how extremely distasteful is the act of exposing it on a semi popular blog with the intent of humiliating the waitress while at the same time decrying that very thing? It's astonishingly hypocritical.
The recant is out of play. Tainted evidence. But you knew that. You're just acting dumb.
Posted by: Andrew | September 01, 2007 at 11:31 PM
andrew
so who chose to ignore the warning and now suffers the consequences for her bad acts?
i agreee the sharks do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy at a public restaurant. THEY do have a reasonable expectation that they won't be subject to stuff being made up out of whole cloth and slandered.
ms. bell has no reasonable expectation that she won't be subject to blowback for her role in the matter. nothing was made up, it was just the truth. embarrassing truth, but she was asked nicely to retract her hurtful comments and she/merci ignored the request. she/merci called the bluff and the shark family threw down three kings to her two pair.
it's not being a hypocrite to point out truthful things in your defense. the stuff the shark family was accused of was false. we -and even you- all know that at this point.
in this whole matter, one can point to numerous lies by ms. bell. you have yet to point out any lies by the shark family.
andrew, it was a politically motivated hit job.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 02, 2007 at 08:03 AM
Andrew--nice job in escaping from my rock analogy submission-hold attempt, but what is your opinion on the false pretenses angle. Nobody goes into a restaurant expecting that the staff is going to blog about them. Shouldn't the customer be notified up-front?
Posted by: wutitiz | September 02, 2007 at 11:11 AM
not in andrew's world...
Posted by: PugetSound | September 02, 2007 at 11:48 AM
The only way PugetSound can win this debate is ensuring he has the last word.
He's covering the same garbage points over and over, claiming the retraction is credible as hif he lives in a vacuum. The fact that the retraction was coerced is unchallenged, but he brings it ad nauseum like some kind of retard fixating on a shiny object. If what the waitress said was actualy made up they surely would have sued her for libel to put their money where their mouth is and make it officialy known that she attempted to defame them. I take anything short of that as evidence that they can't and won't back up their word.
The family complained about having their dirty laundry exposed in public and then aired the waitresses dirty laundry, thereby justifying the waitresses actions and losing any moral highground they had held.
Posted by: Andrew | September 02, 2007 at 12:26 PM
PugetSound: I see that Goldy will have big-time journalist Erica Barnett on at 7PM tonight to talk about this, among other things.
Andrew: still waiting for your view on the false pretenses angle.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 02, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I'm not so much concerned with what the waitress did or wether she deserved to be fired, I'm more interested in how the Sharks responded and fascilitated her firing, and they're lame excuse about protecting their child. By doing to the waitress what the waitress did to them makes them come out looking worse in the end because of who they are and the power they have between them.
Posted by: Andrew | September 02, 2007 at 01:23 PM
You can all stop your petty arguing. Back and forth, back and forth. I, Jeeramya, have proven beyond reasonable doubt that this was a set-up from the get-go, probably at the direction of Rove.
C'mon, GET A LIFE.
Posted by: jeeramya | September 02, 2007 at 02:20 PM
nice try andrew
i see you don't want to be 'cornfused' by the facts.
instead you make up this whole process of them having to spend money to sue when they already got what they wanted: the truth in the form of a public appology and recanting her prior statement.
she recanted.
r-e-c-a-n-t-e-d
let me break it down for you:
re·cant (r-knt)
v. re·cant·ed, re·cant·ing, re·cants
v.tr.
To make a formal retraction or disavowal of (a statement or belief to which one has previously committed oneself).
v.intr.
To make a formal retraction or disavowal of a previously held statement or belief"
kind of sucks, eh? no go outside and get some sun. you need a little vitamin D in your life.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 02, 2007 at 02:32 PM
She recanted but I believe she told the truth and so does everybody else.
Posted by: Andrew | September 02, 2007 at 02:53 PM
Everybody else includes a lot of people Andrew. I am one of those everyone else's who recognizes that she lied, obfuscated, exaggerated, and bullshitted from the very beginning. It was a left wing hatchet job by Stefany and merci.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
She has obviously learned that she can hurt somebody by making crap up and spreading it to reliable friends who in turn puff it up and spread it across the internet.
She knows that she can rely on some liberal idiots to carry the water for her, while she hides under a rock.
Hopefully, she also learned that not everybody will put up with her crap and will stuff it back in her face.
Now back off Andrew. joanie has made me the leader.....
lol, chuck
Posted by: chucks | September 02, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Hey Y'all..I have a dictionary too!
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder:
The phrase "obsessive-compulsive" has worked its way into the wider English lexicon, and is often used in an offhand manner to describe someone who is meticulous or absorbed in a cause (see also "anal-retentive")
Obsessions are defined by:
1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
2.The tendency to haggle over small details that the viewer is unable to fix or change in any way. This begins a mental pre-occupation with that which is inevitable.
Compulsions are defined by:
1. Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.
In addition to these criteria, at some point during the course of the disorder, the sufferer must realize that his/her obsessions or compulsions are unreasonable or excessive. Moreover, the obsessions or compulsions must be time-consuming (taking up more than one hour per day), cause distress, or cause impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning.
OCD is typically treated with behavioral therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), medications, or any combination of the three.
So, PLEASE, get help!!!
Posted by: LeeAnn | September 02, 2007 at 03:28 PM
I see Chucks is back. Chucks, you still haven't explained the 's' on your name. Is there more than one of you, and are you(plural) the product of a cloning program?
Posted by: jeeramya | September 02, 2007 at 04:26 PM
Jeeramya
Chucks is more than a person, it is a state of mind.
Andrew
Dont F!&$* with the Chuck.
And by the way, what is this 'we' business? You got a mouse in your pocket? It just makes you look weak when you pull that crap.
LeeAnn aka You-KNOW-who
I see by the definition that I don't fit in as it only takes a few minutes of my time to effectively deal with the Andrews, LeeAnn, et al.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 02, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Tonight i walked by the now sordidly shabby wood frame house of Mike Webb and thought what a better world it would be if Monson, not Webb had been the KIRO employee fired at the start of 2006. If only Webb had kept his nose clean and Monson instead had been fired for shooting off his handgun at two innocent high school boys he thought were prowling around his precious Jaguar. Then Mike would still hold the 9 to 1 shift, not the odious, asinine Frank Shiers. Some great new openminded, and goodhearted host would be in mean little Monson's chair, as Dori tried to scratch together a living as a professional gambler at Emerald Downs. Frank would still be banished to weekend work at the station.
Posted by: Tommy008 | September 02, 2007 at 08:35 PM
tommy008
what is the status of the person held for the murder of mike webb? has he confessed?
Posted by: PugetSound | September 02, 2007 at 08:39 PM
yes, he confessed, according to the police.
Posted by: Tommy008 | September 02, 2007 at 08:43 PM
I turned on goldy at 7:06PM expecting to hear Erica Barnett of the Stranger talking about her now-discredited article about Sharkansky. It appears she bailed. Instead David Klinghoffer of the Discovery institute was on talking about his book, which goldy had only had time to thumb thru before the show. It looks like Barnett is in hiding after Sharkansky's stunning victory in this matter.
Posted by: wutitiz | September 02, 2007 at 09:43 PM
what's this about dori shooting at some kids, tommy? I googles- did not find anything...
Posted by: mark | September 03, 2007 at 06:38 PM
no no. Sorry, if i got you confused. THERE WAS NO INCIDENT WHERE DORI SHOT AT TWO HIGH SCHOOL KIDS. i wsa merely fantasizing about what if the past had been different and Dori, not Webb, had been the one who did something criminal, such as shooting at some kids loitering by his JAGUAR. This sems like the type of thing he might do sometime, since he's already atated that he believes he has a right to shoot anyone stealing his car.
Posted by: Tommy008 | September 03, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Ah.
I would think ol' Dori would learn a little if he got his foreskin caught in the wheels of justice.
Posted by: mark | September 04, 2007 at 12:58 PM
It's always the people who claim to be infallible that we later find out solicit blowjobs in public restrooms.
Posted by: Andrew | September 04, 2007 at 01:04 PM
I still have never figured how Senator Craig could get it under the stall divider. Senator Craig must be incredibly well-endowed, is all I can figure. Low-hanging fruit, if you will.
Posted by: jeeramya | September 04, 2007 at 05:48 PM