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.
Hey, criticizing parents for supposedly out of control 5 year old is way out of bounds, as anyone who has ever tried to control a 5 year old knows.
But this is different. These people are vindictive assholes, and if they chose to destroy someone over this, it would be nice for this to wash back over them and drown them too.
Posted by: pj | August 26, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Let me remind you all again: the claim is that the dad did NOTHING and the mother did too little. What the kid actualy did isn't the issue. At least chucks dad backhanded him and told him to shut up. That's something.
Posted by: Andrew | August 26, 2007 at 06:39 PM
andrew
kind of selective memory. go back and reread the story and the adjectives used towards the child.
but it was a nice try.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Consider this a cautionary tale on the continued relevance of the class struggle -- even in, or esxpecially in, the blogosphere.
Sharkansy had the money -- and thus the class standing -- to squash a worker who dared to exercise her theoretical right of free speech on the Internet.
Behold bourgeois "liberty" in all its glory.
Posted by: Peter Principle | August 26, 2007 at 06:54 PM
Why do you keep fixating on the story? All I care about is the fact that Sharky tips poorly, doesn't control his kid and got a waitress fired. The fact that the lady was uncomplimentary about the child is a minute side note.
But on the other hand, thank you. I'll take any and every opurtunity to keep the issue alive so that it's not soon forgotten that a well known republican booster had a waitress fired after tipping her poorly. Actions speak louder than words, and these actions are loud.
Posted by: Andrew | August 26, 2007 at 06:54 PM
andrew sez:
"But on the other hand, thank you. I'll take any and every opurtunity to keep the issue alive so that it's not soon forgotten that a well known republican booster had a waitress fired after tipping her poorly. Actions speak louder than words, and these actions are loud."
does it matter that the source recanted and then requested that the story be taken down? does it matter that the original website that spread the story took it down? or are you all about the urban myth. you know, the big lie. repeat it enough.
maybe your one of those means justify the ends type.
why or why did merci take it down if it was true?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 07:28 PM
andrew''s selective memory at work:
"...had a waitress fired after tipping her poorly"
no, she quit after the diner she worked at decided it wasn't good for business to have a waitress unwise enough to be blogging crap -and it wasn't just about shark- about the clientele on her blog.
imagine that...how's the fish taste now?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 07:32 PM
Yaknow, something about this seems familiar...a Republican overreacts to something he reads and doesn't like...gets vindictive..."outs" worker...she loses job.
Wait a minute, did she serve "yellow cake?"
Defaming a kid? Please. A five year old doesn't know better. It's the parents who it reflects on, always. And they are certainly Public Figures, if he has any political aspirations. All smoke-screens. In lieu of this waitress getting her job back (and I will start to "haunt" this establishment if she does) what can be done about this "relative" who "threatened" this gal?
It would be "nice" if that was properly pursued...
Posted by: Justin Atheropinion | August 26, 2007 at 07:58 PM
Actually, Puget Sound, it's clear your perspective on this is, shall we say, pinched.
Because Michael's post here has been front-paged at Daily Kos. Other national bloggers are picking up on it too. It's going viral.
The perspective you are missing here is the obvious one: Sharkansky decided to abuse his power and played the bully against a single mother who offended him. Tucker Carlson did something similar with a hapless video-shop employee and was similarly humiliated.
Sharkansky has just become the national poster boy for bullying conservatives. Guess who's going to wind up sorry here?
Posted by: David Neiwert | August 26, 2007 at 08:03 PM
PugetSound, let me first thank you for the oppurtunity you've given me to drag this on a little further.
PS says "she quit after the diner she worked at decided it wasn't good for business to have a waitress unwise enough to be blogging crap"
She was FIRED, fired, aparently after one of Sharky's people went to the Fremont Classic Pizzeria & Trattoria and raised hell.
PS says "does it matter that the source recanted and then requested that the story be taken down?"
She was pressured. If you torture a person they'll eventualy admit to anything. Please make an effort this simple fact before pulling up this rotten fish again.
Posted by: Andrew | August 26, 2007 at 08:33 PM
David
"Sharkansky decided to abuse his power and played the bully against a single mother who offended him."
What awesome power does Sharkansky possess?
He runs a local conservative blog for gods sake. Not likely to get much traction in Freemont.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 08:34 PM
Andrew
"she was pressured. If you torture a person they'll eventualy admit to anything. "
whatthehell? Now you got the Shark running a little mini Gitmo out of Greenlake?
If you were her employer would you tolerate a waitperson that was snarkily blogging on about the clientele? Would you Andrew?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 08:38 PM
Oh, agreed, it's not much in the way of power, but owning a publication with a daily readership in the thousands really does give one if nothing else the power to threaten, and as such entails a certain level of responsibility. One of those responsibilities is not to single out and target ordinary and otherwise quite powerless citizens. It's called bullying. And it's definitely not cool. No matter how eager you are to rationalize it.
Posted by: David Neiwert | August 26, 2007 at 08:42 PM
Yes, Gusto is correct. 440 ci would be a start.
Posted by: Jimmy Kowalski | August 26, 2007 at 08:48 PM
David
Who is rationalizing here?
Daily readership in the thousands? He wishes.
Who did the singling out in the first place. He was out to have a little pizza with the family and the next thing he and his family knows he is the subject to an anonymous and defamatory story that singled out his kid.
Was that right? Seriously, take away the politics and be honest.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 08:48 PM
That waitress was TOTALLY out of line. If she puts slander out in public about her customers and expects to get way with it, she learned differently.
If her attitude is any indicator of the kind of "service" she provided, then I say 10% is too damn much.
To try to portray this little tramp, with her own bomb threatening offspring, as some sort of poor proletariot being trampled on by the big bad Shark is the height of absurdity.
Posted by: BillClinton | August 26, 2007 at 08:51 PM
hey andrew or anyone else
still waiting. If you were her employer would you tolerate a waitperson that was snarkily blogging on about the clientele?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 08:51 PM
BillClinton
You have to understand that for Andrew, the height of absurdity is very high after all.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 08:52 PM
BillClinton
You have to understand that for Andrew, the height of absurdity is NOT very high after all.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 08:53 PM
PS says "whatthehell? Now you got the Shark running a little mini Gitmo out of Greenlake? "
Yes, and nicely put, thank you. At Shark-Gitmo you lose the jobs you depend on to feed you family one by one until you bend to his will.
PS says "If you were her employer would you tolerate a waitperson that was snarkily blogging on about the clientele? Would you Andrew?"
I as a restaurant operator wouldn't have known one way or another, and would not have had to chance the distinction had the Shark not brought it to my attention in a vicious act of vengence, so this hypothetical is misleading and manipulative.
Posted by: Andrew | August 26, 2007 at 08:53 PM
it's ok, I pull things out of my ass all the time.
Posted by: PS Piece of Shit | August 26, 2007 at 08:55 PM
okay, now finish the thought. the person that was the subject -of the now recanted story- comes to your restaurant. what would you do then andrew?
Shark-Gitmo. You assign such awesome powers to a dude working out of his house in Greenlake.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 08:55 PM
BillClinton says "this little tramp"
Somebody get a bucket of water! This guys credibility is up in flames!
Posted by: Andrew | August 26, 2007 at 08:57 PM
PS says "okay, now finish the thought. the person that was the subject -of the now recanted story- comes to your restaurant. what would you do then andrew?"
I give up. What's the right answer?
"Shark-Gitmo. You assign such awesome powers to a dude working out of his house in Greenlake. "
I'm amazed he managed to get someone fired in general. Either he's realy good or the restaurant operator folded like a house of cards. Mean spirited, down right evil, but impressive none the less.
Posted by: Andrew | August 26, 2007 at 09:03 PM
440 ci.? what? are you going to run over the shark and spouse with a 71 Fury?
Posted by: mark | August 26, 2007 at 09:03 PM
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? Or are you just piling on to this story without caring one whit as to the truth? (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. 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? I was a single mother. That does not mean I can slander other peoples' kids. 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?
Posted by: Irene | August 26, 2007 at 09:05 PM
70 Challenger, the Furys are too pussified
Posted by: Jimmy Kowalski | August 26, 2007 at 09:08 PM
Christine did a fair job in Libertyville, though she was a 318 car...
Posted by: mark | August 26, 2007 at 09:09 PM
Pugetsound is someone that firmly believes if you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe the lie. Unfortunately for him, people eventually decide that you are a liar and stop believing anything he says.
The evidence is quite clear. Sharkansky (pugetsound in this case) lies repeatedly about the woman and what happened. In his world revenge by destroying people's lives is justified by even the slightest of offenses. Sharkansky will be on the receiving end of the same treatment that he does to others. He will find few, if any, offering any sympathy for him.
Posted by: Michael Caine | August 26, 2007 at 09:10 PM
uh oh... goldy says he's going to hash this out on his show.
Posted by: mark | August 26, 2007 at 09:12 PM
Andrew
I as not a restaurant owner, but your customer (your establishment) come to you and complain that one of your staff is blogging crap about me and my family because I stiffed her on the tip. Maybe that night, her service sucked. I did not want to leave any tip, but my wife nagged me to leave something.
She has a friend named merci and tells him and he puts it out there.
I am your customer Andrew, not Stefany's. What are you going to do. You have your whole life tied up in your business and you have this gal chasing away the folks who pay your bills. You kick her to the curb.
Posted by: chucks | August 26, 2007 at 09:14 PM
Uh Oh, Irene is back...
Posted by: LeeAnn | August 26, 2007 at 09:15 PM
Michael Caine
I am not Sharkansky. Note in some posts I even misspelled his name which even a spell challanged individual like myself wouldn't be doing.
Chucks as usual your spot on. Andrew, if you were the boss you would have asked her to leave also. It's a family establishment that invites kids to come. Have you ever been there? It's good food and a family friendly atmosphere.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 09:18 PM
Irene
They really don't care about her. As Noam pointed out above, they will use her for their own means. By any means necessary to borrow a phrase.
If you take them at their word that they really believe her they wouldn't have reposted the story and gleefully reported about it becoming a national story.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 09:19 PM
Irene
You may want to put it on 710. Goldy is going to comment further on the story.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 09:22 PM
What did the five-year old know, and when did he know it?
Posted by: wutitiz | August 26, 2007 at 09:22 PM
Wutzit
Better yet, What did Merci know and when did HE know it.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 09:25 PM
She was wrong to post about him by name, true or false.
He was a jerk to respond as he did.
But the consequences: She will get another job -- waitpeople are in great demand in Seattle. He, on the other hand, will need to find a new favorite restaurant, because the staff there will now treat him like crap, and one can only imagine what they'll do to his food...
Posted by: Bruce | August 26, 2007 at 09:33 PM
this is what Noam said:
"Steffany: You have become for Blatherwatch what Lenin referred to as a "useful idiot." Unfortunately for you, you will be used for entertainment purposes until BW decides differently. The irony of your predicament, being abused by a blog "for the people," is truly a MasterCard moment.
Posted by: Noam | August 25, 2007 at 02:10 PM"
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 09:37 PM
The answer to your hypothetical restaurant question is obvious, but I'm not going to dignify it with a response because we all know the situation wouldn't have existed without the helpful cruel hand of "The Shark".
I say that he got her fired because he, or his affiliates, set forth the chain of events, in which your hypothetical comes later, near the end, and was a consequence, not a cause.
Posted by: Andrew | August 26, 2007 at 09:39 PM
wow andrew, what steps you'll take to avoid an unpleasant answer. ha ha ha
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 09:43 PM
So Andrew, the answer you gave is that you would have also fired her. Right?
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 09:46 PM
Andrew - have you talked to the restaurant owner? Do you actually know what transpired? Don't you think Steffany acted stupidly and recklessly by blogging contemptuously about her restaurant's customers? Steffany set this in motion, not Stefan.
Posted by: Irene | August 26, 2007 at 09:55 PM
Stefan has changed his story twice while talking to Goldy on KIRO...
"No we didnt get her fired.." "My wife went to the restaurant and asked the owner to fire her.."
So which is it???
Posted by: LeeAnn | August 26, 2007 at 09:56 PM
Wow, Shark just kicked Goldys ass on his own show.
Took about two minutes to set it straight.
I'll give him credit for taking the call, but Goldy clearly was bailing at the end.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 09:59 PM
uh lee-ann
need to work on those listening skills. the answer is neither.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 10:00 PM
andrew, don't run away from a tough answer.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Opine opine opine:
Merci buckled because he has a heart and compassion about someone who is getting her life systematically picked apart by a vengeful and spiteful group of people. A group of people so twisted that they actually believe the narrative so far supports them and makes them look them look like victims.
Actually you're both wrong. This had nothing to do with me "buckling" or lacking minerals. The truth is that I was obligated to protect the safety and livelihood of my source. Despite the absolute legitimacy of the story, when she asked me to pull it down, I pulled it down. Simple as that.
Moral: the truth hurts. Instead of facing the music & improving his obviously social misbehavior, Shark decided - in typical Neocon fashion - to take the low road: attack the source like a mafioso thug.
Viewing all this behind the scenes (a view that all of you are severely lacking) this whole story looked less like a "bitter woman" that lied about someone she didn't like, and more about a mafia boss seeing a court case going against him, and then leaning on a juror to rule in his favor. That juror never feels this way, but must make his/her ruling based on their livelihood being threatened by a thug - not the truth.
Posted by: mercifurious | August 26, 2007 at 10:02 PM
poor merci gets no respect. referenced by both shark and goldy as a minor blog. ouch, that has to hurt.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 10:03 PM
merci, my man!
your back. do dish girlfriend.
Posted by: PugetSound | August 26, 2007 at 10:04 PM