I just get tired of rich people thinking that they can just do whatever they want, whenever they want. I just hope I don't lose my temp job. I know I will. This is just stupid and I don't know what to do.
It started as an waitress's amusing tale on a blog with few readers. It was about waiting table on dour Republican activist Stefan Sharkansky, his attorney/wife Irene and their 5-year old son at the Fremont Classic Pizzeria & Trattoria.
According to her, (and others who wait on them) the Sharkansky's 5-year-old was often "marginally attended," and permitted to be loud, obnoxious, and run annoyingly free in the dining room.
What's more, the Sharkanskys, she wrote, only tip 10%.
Sounds like trivial gotcha gossip well beneath the majesty of the likes of Sharkansky so often called an "influential Seattle Republican." Right?
Wrong.
Hell hath no fury like parenting scorned! And
you don't know vindictive 'til you meet the Sharkanskys! Instead of
letting this go and minimizing eyeballs to this trivia, the Sharks
turned both barrels on the single mother of two who works two jobs and
barely keeps her head afloat.
They did opp research, searched public records, got everything they could on her, like the trouble her kid got into; some profane old online rantings about boyfriends and husbands past, and posted everything on Sound Politics. They also found out she worked a 2nd job temping at Amazon.
At first, it was just a lark to her, griping online about a not uncommon server's plaint. So when the Sharks circled, she got her back up- who the hell are they to question my right to speak the truth?
A Shark relative went to the restaurant, raised hell, and she was fired.
"I guess I thought that if I backed down he would 'win,'" the waitress wrote in our threads, "I guess I thought they were empty threats. None of that matters now. I have already been physically threatened in person by one of his relatives. I have been defamed on the Internet. I could lose everything."
She and the original blogger Mercifurious then frantically took down the offending blog entries on both blogs, but that wasn't good enough for the Sharkanskys: they threatened to make trouble over at Amazon, if she didn't make a retraction! To call her own self a liar.
The waitress was so terrified they might further ruin her life, she made a groveling statement found in our comments threads and posted on Sound Politics, Sharkansky's blog:
My place it to smile and serve food. It is not to comment on what my customers are doing in the restaurant. I should have known better. I should also realize that sometimes people act differently in different situations and as a person who only has contact with someone for a short period of time, I have no right to say that is how they are. I was misguided and also mistaken, as has been pointed out to me. I was wrong and I do not intend to work in food service in the future so to avoid perhaps offending another unsuspecting family. I am sorry. Please, please forgive me. Please don't take it out on other food service workers.
The Sharkanskys put down the gun they had pointed at her head and magnanimously accepted her heartfelt mea culpa, and apology.
Power and intimidation not only beat her, but it beat her down.
(Shark's blog got famous after leading the legally frivolous, but politically monkey-wrenching post election fight after the tight 2005 gubernatorial election; and is inarguably the primary bloggly mouthpiece for the Seattle Republican minority).
We mentioned the kerfuffle in our oddems Friday and a shootin' war erupted in our comments threads.
Using language he'd never use in his straight-laced conservative blog, Stefan called us "a sick twisted fuck," which hurt our feelings but hey, we're political and hardened to such abuse. The waitress, however, is wholly apolitical; she had no idea who the hell Sharkansky was. She says she gets her news from E! online.
She didn't smear a 5-year old, as the Sharks tried to spin it, but called the lack of due parenting diligence for what it was: public rudeness, and inconsideration.
Was it not in her best interest for a waitress to spill that online? Yes. Was it worth 5 minutes of the Sharks' precious time and waning credibility to act so heavy handedly to intimidate her? The answer to that is no, as so many of his own readers wrote Friday.
It's a lesson how power, money, and entitlement can make economically vulnerable people crumble in on themselves. We'll not soon forget the words of her desperation: I'm just a waitress, well, I was just a waitress...
We admit it- we love to pull Stefan's tail because he's such a pompous and humorless jerk. but we're just grateful our livelihood doesn't depend on serving people like him and his female counterpart.
Stefan is often mentioned as a Republican break-through candidate for an urban Seattle office. This incident shows what an utter delusion that is.
"It was sad to read the waitress write 'My place is to...' like she is a second class citizen. If she had written, 'It's my job to...' that would be different."
Unfortunately, the reality is that, in today's America, poor people or those with blue collar jobs ARE second class citizens.
Haven't you seem the contempt with which these rich scumbags treat the rest of us? In their eyes, THEY are America and the rest of us exist to serve them.
I wish I could say that I believe that this will turn around and there'll be a happy ending, but I'm far from convinced of that.
Posted by: Cranky Media Guy | August 27, 2007 at 01:50 AM
Wow, it's amazing how brave Republicans can be when it comes to getting a waitress fired and threatening her second job.
Stefan Sharkansky is a real he-man, all right, and his wife is the perfect mate for him. He'll capably deal with the real problems that face rich people in today's society: like people such as waitstaff being able to write about them on blogs and comment on their rudeness and inability to pay their dues.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2007 at 04:52 AM
oh my god, this circle jerk went on all night???
Posted by: sparky | August 27, 2007 at 06:59 AM
sparky
"oh my god, this circle jerk went on all night???"
We took off the shoes and danced in our socks with ol Goldy on the radio last night listening to his palaver. but it came to a screeching close when Mr. Shark called in to put an end to the spin and pinned Mr. Goldy to the floor -on his own show. ouch.
But yeah, you missed it. even ol Mr. Merci showed up for a bit to do some 'splainin' but then had to leave when Irene -one of the people he wrote about- came online and asked to dance a bit with some Q&A. Didn't seem very polite on Merci's part to just post and run but damn if he didn't do just that.
Anyway poor Andrew got sick on that dead fish of his as he twisted away to his logic dance and had to also leave at the end. You won't believe poor Le-Ann -we really need to card these young ones- as she clearly had too much to drink with postings that got a little wild.
Yeah, great party.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 08:03 AM
Good job Puts keeping it in perspective. I missed it after 9:00. Wish that I had listened to Goldy's show. I feel like I missed witnessing a good old spanking.
Andrew was grasping. Le-Ann was Le-Anning, Irene was on point.
If I had an address, I would send Stefany the $3.00 just for the hell of it. She and merci caused a lot of grief over nothing. A big puffed up, cheesy got-cha where there was no got to get.
Posted by: chucks | August 27, 2007 at 08:33 AM
Sparky, this is a serious business. In particular, the timing should set off alarm bells all over. Bush is here today! Last night you had no small number of progressives occupied with monitoring the Sharkansky situation. They got little sleep and will be hard pressed to protest today.
This entire episode may have been designed to accomplish just that. It was a set-up by Shark from the get-go, probably at the direction of Rove.
Doubters--why do you think that LAST night was the big night for this story?
Posted by: jeeramya | August 27, 2007 at 08:34 AM
Jeerayma
Well you DO know that the Shark runs a litle gitmo out of greenlake dont cha? and according to Mercii is the Seattle version of John Gotti in terms of intimidation. and where the heck was shark when building 7 at the WTC went down anyways...
Yep, your just a victim of a masterplot. Next thing he'll be taking away from you is Hempfest.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 08:38 AM
I think we should get child welfare to monitor this piece of shit (who has the initials SS by the way - how Hitler like) and see if they can't find cause to take this kid away from the asshole. I think we should all start monitoring his activities. This asswipe can't get all of us fired. Let's document this prick abusing his kid and cost HIM something. If he's letting his kid wander around unattended - that constitutes child abuse in my Constitutionally protected opinion.
Posted by: David Wilson | August 27, 2007 at 08:43 AM
chucks
spot on.
the best part was poor andrew, he was hanging his hat on the tipping dealie and when we found out it was over a $10 (15% tip) not a $13 (20% tip) even he got a little queesy. i told him to stay away from the farmed salmon but the boy won't listen. :)
Merci is out there lurking and will no doubt return. just wish he would answer a few questions from his blog readers. you know, the ones you asked. did he have permission in the first place to post the story or did his source get surprised? goldy wasn't very nice to ol Mr. Merci calling Merci's blog a minor thing that no one reads.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 08:44 AM
Frankly, I think the waitress made a huge mistake....but it probably wasn't the first time. Kudo's to Irene for informing the owner. Business owners generally WANT to know if employees are inappropriately bad-mouthing customers in public.
Portraying this waitress as a "victim" is almost laughable. Perhaps her actions are evidence of why she is a "single" mom??!
Posted by: Moderate | August 27, 2007 at 09:03 AM
spot on moderate! this isn't a political thing its a fairness thing over $3! if you take it as a tipping story.
merci and friend were playing some snarky gotcha and it backfired on 'em. merci needs to learn how to protect a source. but when initially asked to take it down they both blew it off and later suffered the consequences. frankly, the sharkansk family was more than considerate by offering them an early opportunity to take it back no harm no foul. but no, she and merci refused and others now want to cry foul that it blew up on 'em. don't play with matches if you don't want to take a risk of getting burned is the lesson here.
reading her posted blog you can tell she is a confused person going through a difficult time in her life. hopefully this will be a wake up call. i wish her the best and if she has received any threats to personal safety she should report them to the police, asap.
not sure what the deal is with merci. he's not taking questions.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 09:22 AM
Portraying this waitress as a "victim" is almost laughable.
Yeah, I expect you almost laugh at single mothers who lose their jobs because some asshole calls their employer and says "SHE SAID MY KID WAS A NUISANCE! AND SHE SAID I ONLY TIPPED 10%!" after their kid was a nuisance and they only tipped 10%.
Some asshole whose idea of child-rearing is to viciously attack anyone who says anything critical of his child's behavior, moreover. It's no wonder the child behaves badly with parents like the Sharkanskies.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2007 at 09:23 AM
frankly, the sharkansk family was more than considerate by offering them an early opportunity to take it back no harm no foul.
Wow, puget. I expect you think Marie Antoinette was being "more than considerate" when she said starving Parisians should eat cake.
Let's not forget: Stefan Sharkansky followed up his "considerate" offer to "allow" this woman who was hassled by his ill-brought-up child to withdraw her accurate criticisms of his and his wife's behavior in public by (a) getting her fired (b) threatening to get her fired from her second job (c) traducing her in a public forum (d) sending someone round to threaten her at the restaurant.
To think that's "considerate", you'd have to admire Mario Puzo's Godfathers.
Maybe you do.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2007 at 09:28 AM
PS, I actualy went to sleep. I see you fell asleep on your keyboard, got right back up and started typing again. Damn that's sad. We already know you're golding a losing hand no matter how many ways you try to play the same cards.
Michele said "I think this waitress was pretty ready to quit her job before all this even happened. If you read her very foul-mouthed blog (which is really sad--after all, she's someones' mother!), you'll see that she was actually seething with contempt for the families who come to her restaurant, including the moms who came in with what she contemptuously describes as their "wash and wear haircuts" [bla bla bla] she doesn't "have to touch other people's food".
How does this prove she lied?
Michele said "People, don't you get it---she made a hobby out of dumping on the clientele; she did it to Stefan's family in particular and to everyone else in general before that"
That doesn't mean she lied.
Michele says "She then takes a name off a customer credit card and cowardly slanders a particular family, believing she could stay 'in the shadows'"
She did the public a service by showing us a side of a public figure he/they would never have willfully revealed. If the Sharks were as forthright as the waitress on their own blog, she'd never have had to. She lost her job for informing the populace about a political figure. That's almost martyr-like.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 09:40 AM
moderate says "Perhaps her actions are evidence of why she is a "single" mom??!"
That's single-handedly more vicious than anything the waitress said about the Sharks. Congratulations on effortlessly lowering the bar so much lower. Thank you for siding with the Sharks, we apreciate it very much.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 09:44 AM
Andrew.
Do you not get it at all? You are obsessed with accepting what was printed by Nate as truth. There is no evidence of truth to the whole story. Irene has "testified" that they left a $10.00 tip on a $65.00 tab. Ten bucks is not 20% that Stefany thinks she deserves, nor is it the dastardly 10% claimed in the big story. Do you have anything solid with which to refute that? It seems that the worst "evil" to this whole thing is that the family has a five year old child that "may" have acted like (gasp) a five year old child. Should Stefan or Irene have taken the child by the ear to the restroom and beat the crap out of him? Hell no! Do you know how they handled the situation after leaving the restaurant? I have no idea myself. But hey, it is none of my business anyway.
It is all an ill conceived and unfair gothcha on the part of merci to try to shame a family that he does not agree with politically. It blew up in his and Stefany's face. All that is left is for you and others to grasp at anything you can to try to plug the holes in this stupid non-story.
Posted by: chucks | August 27, 2007 at 10:15 AM
OMG you heard him. Sharkansky's got something in the works to take out HempFest.
Posted by: jeeramya | August 27, 2007 at 10:20 AM
chucks, if what you were saying was true then I doubt the waitress would have become as angry as she did. I can relate to what she was going through. Sometimes you wish you could spank a kid but you're hands are tied because you're not the parent, all the while the parents sit back and pretend their child doesn't exist.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Andrew
Look at her writings on her blog sites. She is generally unhappy at this time in her life. Her happily ever after is not working for her at this time.
I hope she finds happiness soon. I do not know her and can not guide or judge her. The real stinker in this is Nate. You could see last week, before he posted or created all of the drama, he was gloating about having the "goods" on Shark.
He screwed up because he thought he could bring down a member of the other side.
Merci is a talented writer and believes in his cause, whatever the hell that is. He just needs to keep it professional and keep family's off the radar.
Posted by: chucks | August 27, 2007 at 10:59 AM
chucks says "Look at her writings on her blog sites. She is generally unhappy at this time in her life"
You're all brain dead for repeating this theme over and over. An unhappy person isn't necessarily a pathological liar. You find one detail about her that's unusual and scream FREAK!!! and try to draw attention away from what she claims to have happened and divert it to her own character, which has no relevance in this case.
The fact that she likes to share her life with the world on the internet coincides with her willingness to spread other types of information. There's no surprise there. A waitress who doesn't blog probably deals with the same issue but keeps it all inside or tells her coworkers over a smoke break. This lady blogs. Wooowoowoo!
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 11:15 AM
hey andrew, she recanted the story. let me break it down for you in plain english. she took it back. what part of that do you not understand.
trying to make up 'reasons' as to why is ridiculous.
wooowooo on blogging publicly about your employer and his/her business.
YEAH, it is a big deal. would your boss like it?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 11:27 AM
jeremeya
"OMG you heard him. Sharkansky's got something in the works to take out HempFest.
Posted by: jeeramya | August 27, 2007 at 10:20 AM"
don't forget bldg 7 at the WTC...figured YOU would focus on the Hempfest.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 11:29 AM
i'll try again Andrew the question you didn't answer last night -probably the fish. Anyway:
"c'mon andrew, surely you wondered about that. why o why did this supposedly apolitical person know enough to get this story to merci's blog?
kismet?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 11:52 PM
you like to delve into motives. delve into that one.
should be interesting to hear YOUR take on it.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 11:32 AM
PugetSound, you've got a lot more patience and hang-in-there-ability than I'll ever have, and you've almost single-handedly brought thinks to a resolution. I think you've made your point about 'mercifurious' and maybe it's time to allow him to absorb the lesson, which hopefully he will be a big enough man to do. I'm curious, how do you come by this kind of patience?
Posted by: wutitiz | August 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Wutitiz
I use to deal with a poster here who calls herself Joanie....it was good practice. :)
I really hope that Merci comes back. He can be spot on funny and I do like his writing.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM
PS, I believe you have caused Sir Andrew to defeat himself. All subsequent posting by him in this regard are bogus and only continue to add to his ignorance (thru politically-colored glasses). Well done!
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM
agreed duff. ol andrew is spent.
i think i'll go over to pike's place market and catch some of those flying fish...
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 12:15 PM
..say hello to merci
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 12:18 PM
PS says "you like to delve into motives. delve into that one.
should be interesting to hear YOUR take on it."
All she'd have to do is type in Sharky's name into Google and the rest is history. Welcome to the Internet.
Duffman, you're single handedly destroying this blog.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 12:27 PM
No more bullshit, Duffman. You are a conservative and a Republican. We know who you are, even if we didn't want to.
Posted by: sarge | August 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Hey Duffy.
Totally off topic, but this topic is off on its own anyway.
You would have been proud of me.
I drove the Rolls to work today. I have a "Tax Accountants For Hillary Clinton" license frame on the back and a "Trial Lawyers For John Edwards" frame on the front.
I love the looks on peoples faces when they read the frames. It is just plain fun to look in the mirror while stopped at a light.
Posted by: chucks | August 27, 2007 at 12:29 PM
PS says "hey andrew, she recanted the story. let me break it down for you in plain english. she took it back. what part of that do you not understand. "
This is easy, I can cut'n'paste an earlier response. "The waitress told a blogger, an account we can reasonably believe to be truthful as her dubious retraction was made under duress."
"trying to make up 'reasons' as to why is ridiculous."
If you say so. Crime investigators do it all the time to determine motives. Judges and juries do it all the time to determine the likelihood of guilt or innocence.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM
My new policy is not to respond to BS, so Andrew and sarge 'fester' on - you shan't get a response from me unless you post something reasonably intelligent.
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 12:34 PM
..funny stuff chucks; Mrs Clinton is still 'my man' tho.
I think by now you know how I feel about Mr Edwards. As a viable Democratic presidential candidate - he's a good lawyer.
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM
why do you run from the question?
"c'mon andrew, surely you wondered about that. why o why did this supposedly apolitical person know enough to get this story to merci's blog?
kismet?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 11:52 PM
you like to delve into motives. delve into that one.
should be interesting to hear YOUR take on it.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 12:50 PM
chucks
what's the cost to upkeep a rolls?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 12:51 PM
but why would she -this unpolitical person- know enough to pick his name off of his credit card and head over to google after work. over a $3 discrepancy ie 15% and not a 20% tip?
moreover, how would she then know to get ahold of merci who runs what Goldy calls 'a minor blog' to feed him the story.
doesn't add up. elucidate.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Usually just a limb now and then Puts. I do not drive it so much, maybe a thousand miles a year at the most. British wiring is the real problem. Seems that if it needs a 20 inch wire, they use 40 and coil it, or 19" and stretch it.
But it is a pretty cool old car.
Posted by: chucks | August 27, 2007 at 01:06 PM
Actually, at this point, the waitress (who happens to be a real person, not some hypothetical construct) is superfluous. The only reason this became known outside of an extremely low population is because of how the Sharkansky's over-reacted. What the incident has truly shown is their character, or lack thereof.
For a small and practically unknown slight, the Sharkanskys systematically went about to destroy another person's life. They made sure to do it as publicly as possible. Forcing her to make a humiliating and degrading apology. What exactly did the person do to deserve this?
Is criticizing someone's parenting skills and calling them a lousy tipper really an invitation to destroy the person's ability to financially provide for their own children as well as themselves?
Apparently the Sharkanskys believe so, as Irene has posted herself and Stefan admitted to on air. For that is what they went about doing. And that, more than anything that the "waitress" said or did, is what the story has become about. The vindictive and spiteful family values of the Sharkanskys.
Posted by: Michael Caine | August 27, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Puget: trying to make up 'reasons' as to why is ridiculous.
Nobody needs to "make up" reasons as to why: she'd lost one job because of these vindictive thugs, she wanted to keep her job with Amazon, she'd been physically threatened, and she was afraid she'd never be able to get another job waitressing if the Sharks were after her.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Stefan Sharkansky: Waitress Slayer
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 27, 2007 at 01:36 PM
You have a nice blog, Jesu.
Posted by: sparky | August 27, 2007 at 01:51 PM
What a couple of jerks. Nice stuff to teach a kid...
Posted by: Rujax! | August 27, 2007 at 02:11 PM
..but empty of any real content
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 02:11 PM
PS says "but why would she -this unpolitical person- know enough to pick his name off of his credit card and head over to google after work. over a $3 discrepancy ie 15% and not a 20% tip?
moreover, how would she then know to get ahold of merci who runs what Goldy calls 'a minor blog' to feed him the story.
doesn't add up. elucidate."
Like I said, you're dumb for believing this is over a $3 tip shorting.
Google will tell anyone who "The Shark" is, and make it clear he's a public figure. I don't know how she found merci, but then again I didn't even know merci had a blog, so I wouldn't think to go to him to beging with. People know people. Friends have friends and friends of friends. That's not uncommon. It's not proof of an ulterior motive.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 02:27 PM
Duffman talking about content, that's a riot coming from a guy who crawls out of his cave to post nonsense on an otherwise fine blog, before crawling back in.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 02:29 PM
So childish but expected when you know not of what you speak. You obviously like to read your ramblings...must be an ego thing or WAY too much time on your hands. You know you could get a job as a waitperson and fill up some of that spare time. Sometimes you make absolutely no sense at all; other times your at least read(able)...undulating personality?
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 02:35 PM
..that s/be you're; sorry sparks.
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 02:38 PM
You're crazy.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Thank you. Coming from you I would have to regard that as a compliment.
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 02:43 PM