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.
all right andrew
"Like I said, you're dumb for believing this is over a $3 tip shorting."
so you tell us, what was it over?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 02:58 PM
You're welcome, Duffman. Now if Puts will just learn the "your/you're" rule.......
Posted by: sparky | August 27, 2007 at 03:23 PM
working on it, working on it...
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Well, to put it in real perspective. You could have Senator Craig's problem.
YIKES
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 03:37 PM
Transcends the political gamut PS; just doesn't matter what political 'flavor' you are.
[Were I in that next stall Mr Craig w/have found a ball-point pen implanted in his hand]
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 03:44 PM
"The only reason this became known outside of an extremely low population is because of how the Sharkansky's over-reacted. "
Actually, no. The only reason this became known outside of an extremely low population is because Michael Hood chose to post a false and defamatory story on his blog with reckless disregard for the truth.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky | August 27, 2007 at 03:52 PM
""Like I said, you're dumb for believing this is over a $3 tip shorting."
Still waiting for an answer Andrew. What was it over...and by the way you can stop tapping your foot I ain't interested. :)
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 03:57 PM
"..with reckless disregard for the truth."
Shark: don't you think this actually led to a conclusion in this matter. I don't believe Bla'M was 'defaming' ANYone. While I agree there was way TOO MUCH made of this incident - the back-and-for banter probably ended up in your favor; thanks to PugetSound of this blog.
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Since Irene addressed me specifically I'll asnwer her statement:
"David Neiwert, Justin, Peter - would you even care if I showed you a bunch of receipts that proved that Stefan regularly tipped 15% or more at this casual family restaurant?"
No. For me $3.00 isn't the issue. It's your family's (Stefan's and your's) poorly gasoline on fire to solve your problems. And you have them.
"Or are you just piling on to this story without caring one whit as to the truth?"
You're a lawyer (and a Republican), so truth is malleable.
"(If there was an isolated incident of tipping 10%, that would have been due to extraordinarily slow or poor service.) Stefan did not have the waitress fired."
You did, as per your earlier post.
"The waitress inappropriately and maliciously blogged about her restaurant's own customers, both by name and in general. And what does her being a single mother have to do with anything?"
Nothing.
"I was a single mother."
Immaterial.
"That does not mean I can slander other peoples' kids."
How do you slander a KID? Five year olds have behavior problems--of some form and variety--they're learning how society works (yours REALLY is!), and it is up to their parents to show them the way society--POLITE society behaves in a public situation.
You can't slander a kid. You can only embarrass their parents.
"Single mothers can act responsibly. Please stop with the victim stuff. Steffany Bell was a victim of her own actions and writings. And if any of you are actually concerned about her, why are you perpetuating the story when Stefan has already pulled down his post on her?"
Why? Is that a threat? What are you planning to do to her NOW? (I think this "threatening relative" should STILL be looked into...)
Posted by: Justin Atheropinion | August 27, 2007 at 05:16 PM
So 'Justin' by your post, am I to read that one shouldn't take a physically/mentally-challenged person into a restaurant if they are likely to 'act up'? Are they to be banned from public eating places if they can't be 'totally controlled'? Children are a part of our society - should they be taught to behave ABSOLUTELY; do they sometimes go beyond CERTAINLY. You sound like such a tolerant person, much like Mother Teresa -NOT!
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 05:25 PM
Why don't the Sharks take this as constructive criticism? Rather than tell us they'll be more mindful of their kid in the future, they aparently would rather destroy the critic.
Imagine what twisted extreme people with a mentality like that would go to if they had even more power, or held an elected office. A scary prospect. Rather than change themselves, they aparently try to change the world around them. I feel that I learn the most when I make mistakes and have to figure out a way to solve the problem and ultimately improve myself.
The fact that the wife is a lawyer makes them all the more scary. They can theoreticly exploit flaws in the law to bend justice in there favor, free of charge, while the rest of us would have to hire lawyers to defend ourselves from their attacks.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Duff, the Sharks child is not mentaly challenged, so you're not making any sense. Just go away and come back when the rest of us are done debating.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 05:38 PM
Since Irene addressed me specifically I will address her question
" LeeAnn do you have kids?"
Why, Irene, are you writing a book?
Posted by: LeeAnn | August 27, 2007 at 06:18 PM
andrew sez:
"Just go away and come back when the rest of us are done debating."
sounds great, then how about YOU telling us what it was over.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 06:20 PM
le-ann
i think she was going to atttempt to relate to you as a parent.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 06:21 PM
So the fact that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are lawyers make them all the more scary. They can theoretically exploit flaws in the law to bend justice in their favor, free of charge, while the rest of us have to hire lawyers (and tax accountants) to defend ourselves from them.
I suppose it is possible, but it depends on what the definition of is is.
Andrew, now I see your point through liberally rose colored glasses.
Of coarse this whole situation has been pushed well beyond any reasonable conclusion.
Stefany says she lied or exaggerated. Merci pulled the post. Stefan pulled the story. He and Irene want to let it go.
It is just us fools (I include you Andrew with the us) who keep it going.
Where the hell is joanie. Maybe she can slap us into shape.
Posted by: chucks | August 27, 2007 at 06:23 PM
andrew
"...would rather destroy the critic."
that lady was no critic, rather she was out to destroy their reputation. if she really wanted to help maybe she would have come up and talked to them privately rather than rip them in public.
that argument of yours is easily dismissed.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 06:24 PM
chucks says "So the fact that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are lawyers make them all the more scary. They can theoretically exploit flaws in the law to bend justice in their favor"
But we haven't seen any inidication they intend to do so, unlike some people.
"I suppose it is possible, but it depends on what the definition of is is."
You're stuck in a time warp. I bet you taped the impeachment floor vote and watch it every lonely Saturday night.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 06:35 PM
whatsamatter andrew, can't come up with an answer?
how about YOU telling us what it was over.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 06:39 PM
See no humor in my last post Andrew?
Come on Andy, you set it up. I just could not help myself.
Duffy loves Hillary and I bet he at least chuckled.
This is way beyond salvation.
Let it go Andrew. Life is too short and you have many other pergressive things to rant over.
Posted by: chucks | August 27, 2007 at 06:42 PM
PS says ""...would rather destroy the critic."
that lady was no critic, rather she was out to destroy their reputation."
What she said was critical, thus she's a critic. That's just common sense. As to wether she wanted their reputation destroyed or not is another matter. Maybe she wanted to tell the truth as she saw it, as simple as that.
"if she really wanted to help maybe she would have come up and talked to them privately rather than rip them in public.
that argument of yours is easily dismissed."
That's like saying Roger Ebert should whisper into the ears of the movie producers and secretly reveal his thumb up or down behind a cusped hand.
People have a right to say what they want to whomever they want, with few exceptions, none of which occur here.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 06:43 PM
And Andrew, the offended party has the right to say what want to whomever they want. They defended what they saw as a personal attack on their character and family.
Stefany admitted she was wrong.
It was the correct response, because she was wrong.
Posted by: chucks | August 27, 2007 at 06:48 PM
okay andrew, i'll concede she is a critic. a mean spirited one that rather than a constructive one. one who- i'll point out- annonymously went after a 5 year old with fairly over the top adjectives.
she wasn't trying to help the sharkinsky family she was trying to hurt them. over what, $3?
now, come on what was it about. you still haven't -or can't- answer it. you keep telling us you know what it was about. so go ahead, give us your 2 cents.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 06:48 PM
spot on chuck.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 06:49 PM
Sir Andrew doesn't have 2-cents worth of real debate to offer; he's simply seeking attention by posting superfluous rhetoric with some base points that don't ever relate. If you look back at his posts and try to follow his logic it ain't there. He loves to hear himself write, probably under some fantasy lawyer wanna-be realm. What a frickin joke.
Posted by: Duffman | August 27, 2007 at 07:01 PM
i gotta agree with you duff. absent his answering a fairly straightforward question you appear to be correct in your observation.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 07:35 PM
Excuse me, Andrew, but Steffany herself admitted that most of what she said was a lie. I got it from HER. Some little details like that ARE important, right?
Posted by: Michele | August 27, 2007 at 08:42 PM
And Cranky Media Guy, waitstaff people are only second class if you believe they are, which you just said you do.
My hubby was once a busboy between college years and I didn't think anyone like you was out there seeing him as second class. I did not regard him as second class for working as such at the time.
Posted by: Michele | August 27, 2007 at 08:45 PM
Hey Michele and Puts, if you feel you have run out of things to say about this on Blatherwatch, you can always go to
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/
sharkansky_shitty_tipper_vindictive
_jerk
and start all over again!
I would give you a direct link but my linker isn't working.
Posted by: sparky | August 27, 2007 at 08:51 PM
chucks says "And Andrew, the offended party has the right to say what want to whomever they want. They defended what they saw as a personal attack on their character and family."
They didn't just play defense, they went offensive. They attacked the waitress and did more damage to her with their smear and intimidation then she ever did to them in telling us what I believe to be the truth.
All of you who defend "The Sharks" are attacking, vis a vis, public honesty, transparency and decency. The Sharks have issues they should spend effort addressing rather than attacking those who call them out, and there response was a vicious overeaction.
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 08:56 PM
spot on Andrew!
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 08:56 PM
Wow you made some good points Andrew! I think they're on the run!
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 09:00 PM
you Da Man Andrew. wooo-hoooo!
appreciate the sincere hat tip sparky but i feel okay here. i'll check out your suggestion later. go ahead and post over there if YOU like. eh?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 09:03 PM
not as interested in Stefffffan as you are. I will pass.
Posted by: sparky | August 27, 2007 at 09:08 PM
Andrew: sure, she has the right to say what she wants to say. But the restaurant owner has the right to summarily terminate her if he doesn't want servers writing nasty stuff about customers.
Imagine life if everytime you went into a business, you had to worry about what the clerks were going to put on the web. You go to buy some shoes, and that night you read: "Andrew's feet are soooo ugly. And he has big time toenail fungus hehe." You probably wouldn't go back to that shoe store. And that's how businesses thrive, by building repeat business. So that's why the waitress got fired. I think she sees that now, why don't you see it?
Posted by: wutitiz | August 27, 2007 at 09:08 PM
Andrew doesn't see it cause he is incapable of being intellectually honest.
Hey Sparky, sorry to see that after you had gone to all the trouble to find that website for people who disagree with you. And now it goes to waste. boo-hoo.
Anyway have you noticed since ph(j)oanie has been on hiatus ol' Coiler has been very silent.
connection? hmmm.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 09:12 PM
PugetSound: you hold'em under water, you point out the little bubbles that are going up, and they insist that the bubbles are going down. What's a Gitmo/Gotti to do?
Posted by: wutitiz | August 27, 2007 at 09:17 PM
"What's a Gitmo/Gotti to do?"
why Blame Bush of course...
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 09:21 PM
wutitiz, I was about to address your concern but, are you threatening to drown me?
Posted by: Andrew | August 27, 2007 at 09:24 PM
yes andrew, he is going to waterboard you by dunking you in the truth. torture for you i am sure.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 09:27 PM
i dont have a clue what you are talking about regarding a website going to waste. Whatever.
Joanie took her new cat and spent the weekend near Blaine. She posted that a few days ago, so you weren't paying attention.
And if you think coiler and joanie are the same person, well, that is pretty hilarious.
Posted by: sparky | August 27, 2007 at 09:30 PM
Somebody finally engaged putsie? Oh putsie, you're in heaven. Make the most of it, dear. It won't last long.
Posted by: joanie | August 27, 2007 at 09:30 PM
Putz and Nixon, both paranoid. Okay?
Posted by: coiler | August 27, 2007 at 09:32 PM
hey your back ph(j)oanie
i guess we'll be seeing coiler soon.
c'mon on in, the water is fine.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 09:32 PM
What, Sparky? Putsie is still talking about me? Aaaah, isn't that sweet? He's obsessed, simply obsessed. I'm sorry, puts, I'm saying no. No, no, a million times no.
But, keep trying dear. I feel so special.
Irene, you can't have him. He's mine.
Posted by: joanie | August 27, 2007 at 09:33 PM
So we've established that there are (at least) two classes of citizen: the lower class does not have the right to criticize the upper class; the upper class has the right, not merely to criticize but to destroy the livelihood of any lower-class who do criticize -- and this reaction is considered "fair", even though the lower-class neither had the power nor made the attempt to wreak any such destruction.
Reminds me of Nixon's "enemies list" of those who'd criticized him, which he turned over to the IRS for intensive audits of those listed. What a difference between action and reaction, due to the differential in power. What an abuse of that power.
What can we expect Sharkansky to do with official power if he's ever given any?
Posted by: Pyre | August 27, 2007 at 09:34 PM
oh ph(j)oanie, I really hope the treatments at shick shadel (oops, I mean Blaine) work for you and the cure is a lasting one.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 09:38 PM
Andrew, repeat after me(silently): the bubbles are going up, swim for the surface. The bubbles are rising, follow the bubbles.
Posted by: wutitiz | August 27, 2007 at 09:39 PM
c'mon andrew, kick kick kick you can make it.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 27, 2007 at 09:41 PM
Thanks, putsie. Your ass-umptions are always fun to read. Perhaps one day you'll get it (or anything) right.
BTW, I'm curious what kind of kid you were. I can kind of picture you running to the teacher . . . a lot. Were you a tattle tale, putsie? Anything for the regal pat on the head?
Posted by: joanie | August 27, 2007 at 09:43 PM