Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5230)

Bloggingheads 05-14-2010 04:01 PM

The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 

sugarkang 05-14-2010 05:06 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Yes, she is.

Shouter 05-14-2010 06:02 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
So, Lewis begins his discussion of Kagan's nomination by spending eight minutes singling out "the interesting topic" of whether or not she's gay, while tutting about how trivial it is. And Scher lets him get away with it.

Kagan's friends have said she's not gay, and with due respect to Andrew Sullivan, it's not important, or interesting, except as a way to dog-whistle to conservatives that she's a threat of some sort, and to indulge discussion of it as what's most "interesting" about her nomination is to play into the hands of right wing scandal-mongers.

Other than that, lots of characteristic hand-weaving on Lewis' part - can we just take it as an admission of defeat when he changes the subject instead of defending some unsupported contention he has just been called on? It sure is a tiresome conversational gambit, and I wish Scher wouldn't enable it quite so often.

Baltimoron 05-14-2010 06:06 PM

Playing to the Cheap Seats
 
From the civil and inspiring Greenwald-Lessig diavlog on Kagan and Congressional corruption to "The 'Is Elena Kagan Gay' Meme", to sugarkang. What a dive off the cliff! Can we get a little more consistent in diavlog selection, BhTV?

badhatharry 05-14-2010 07:16 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shouter (Post 161882)

Kagan's friends have said she's not gay, and with due respect to Andrew Sullivan, it's not important, or interesting, except as a way to dog-whistle to conservatives that she's a threat of some sort, and to indulge discussion of it as what's most "interesting" about her nomination is to play into the hands of right wing scandal-mongers.

I don't think most people, including those on the right, care what Kagan's sexual preference is.

nikkibong 05-14-2010 08:17 PM

OMFG
 
a first: matt lewis sings the gospel truth:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/281...2:40&out=04:05

pitch perfect, mr lewis. so true.

except for the appellation "liberal double standard." i'd call it the "bjkeefe double standard."

(if that doesn't to get him to come out of his hole and start commenting again, i don't know what will)

JonIrenicus 05-14-2010 08:51 PM

In Falwells defense
 
He was right about the teletubbies.

Unit 05-14-2010 08:53 PM

The case for regime uncertainty
 
Bill makes it beautifully, not realizing (?) that it bodes ill for the economic recovery.

listener 05-14-2010 09:39 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shouter (Post 161882)
So, Lewis begins his discussion of Kagan's nomination by spending eight minutes singling out "the interesting topic" of whether or not she's gay, while tutting about how trivial it is. And Scher lets him get away with it.

Good point about the hypocrisy involved.

The discussion of this topic really should be left to those best suited to handle it and put it in its proper place and perspective.

chamblee54 05-14-2010 11:58 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
On a diavlog earlier this week, someone ( I want to say Matthew Yglesias, but I cannot swear it was him) made a comment about Elena Kagan. He said she would probably be confirmed, unless damaging information became known. He said this information might "come out".
The photo editing tonight is color pictures from the Russian empire of 1905. It will probably be tomorrow morning before they are up on the blog. This morning we had pictures, from a local source, of Atlanta GA in the sixties and early seventies. Three former Governors of Georgia, one who became President, Colonel Sanders, and lots of big hair.
The spell check suggestion for Yglesias is Ecclesiastes.

Shouter 05-15-2010 12:21 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 161892)
I don't think most people, including those on the right, care what Kagan's sexual preference is.

The sad part is that I think you're probably right that most don't care. However, the prospect of stirring up some sort of fuss about Kagan for its own sake is apparently irresistible, and the cynicism is depressing.

Shouter 05-15-2010 12:24 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Quote:

The discussion of this topic really should be left to those best suited to handle it and put it in its proper place and perspective.
True and priceless, as usual - I neither can nor want to compete with that! :)

listener 05-15-2010 12:25 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Again, super cool amazing photographs!

listener 05-15-2010 12:29 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shouter (Post 161925)
True and priceless, as usual - I neither can nor want to compete with that! :)

Me neither.

I just noticed that the pairing of our screen names makes for a pretty interesting combination -- a kind of a yin and yang type of thang. :D

jimM47 05-15-2010 06:09 PM

Bork
 
Bill said:And what light did Bork's video rental history shed on his legal philosophy?

I'm not a big Bork fan — he and I take different sides in one of the movement's internecine squabbles — but it is hardly fair to say, as Bill does, that his nomination fight was merely over his legal philosophy.

Bill Scher 05-15-2010 09:29 PM

Re: Bork
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 161984)
Bill said:

And what light did Bork's video rental history shed on his legal philosophy?

I'm not a big Bork fan — he and I take different sides in one of the movement's internecine squabbles — but it is hardly fair to say, as Bill does, that his nomination fight was merely over his legal philosophy.

Funny. What you actually find on that Google search page is this:

http://www.fair.org/extra/9904/bork.html

Quote:

...For Washington's pundits, desperately grasping to retrofit some meaning onto a year of madness, the Bork video-rental story stood out as a seminal episode of the new ugliness that had swept over national politics. Commentators often suggested that the attack-dog style of 1998's politics could be traced back to that nasty first stone cast by the Democrats 11 years earlier. But future historians who sift through the documents looking for the famous "Blockbuster Subpoena" will have a hard time finding it--because it never existed.

The infamous video rentals entered the public record not through a Democratic subpoena, but via an article in City Paper, a weekly newspaper in Washington D.C. (The New Republic admitted this in a correction to Rothstein's essay: 2/22/99). Almost immediately, the paper was denounced by liberal groups and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for invading Bork's privacy.

The ACLU complained to the editor of City Paper, comparing the exposure to breaking and entering. People for the American Way, which led the fight against Bork's confirmation, urged the District of Columbia to pass a law to make sure it wouldn't happen again. "We believe the release of such information is a clear violation," a People for the American Way lobbyist told the Chicago Tribune (11/20/87).

(Of course, it was easy for liberals to denounce the intrusion, since the "exposé" managed to reveal some decidedly non-scandalous movie rentals: A Day At the Races, Ruthless People and The Man Who Knew Too Much were among them.)

The Bork video subpoena has become a kind of journalistic urban legend--an easily checkable assertion that "everybody knows," so no one bothers to check. But it is also part of the larger fiction that Robert Bork's confirmation hearings were somehow an exercise in "personal destruction." In fact, the fight over Bork's nomination, noisy and voluble as it was, never departed from the issues of constitutional interpretation one would hope for in a debate about the Supreme Court.

jimM47 05-16-2010 03:45 AM

Re: Bork
 
Bill, I was unaware there was an urban legend that the leaking had been an official Senate act. Congratulations, you got me. But the later urban legend doesn't change the facts as they initially happened.

Part of the attacks on Bork were the printing of his video rental history by a newspaper. The attacks on Kagan you and Matt were talking about were criticisms of her personal life printed in a newspaper. Yes, the part of the confirmation process that takes place in the Senate chamber may have changed, but the fact that aspects of a nominee's private life irrelevant to their legal philosophy are part of the public debate is nothing new.

SaraK 05-16-2010 11:20 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Christ, Scher, can you learn to stop constantly laughing at your own comments?

badhatharry 05-16-2010 02:11 PM

Re: Bork
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 162029)
Bill, I was unaware there was an urban legend that the leaking had been an official Senate act. Congratulations, you got me. But the later urban legend doesn't change the facts as they initially happened.

Part of the attacks on Bork were the printing of his video rental history by a newspaper. The attacks on Kagan you and Matt were talking about were criticisms of her personal life printed in a newspaper. Yes, the part of the confirmation process that takes place in the Senate chamber may have changed, but the fact that aspects of a nominee's private life irrelevant to their legal philosophy are part of the public debate is nothing new.

Remember Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas and the famous pubic hair on the soda can incident?

Ocean 05-16-2010 02:51 PM

Re: Bork
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 162058)
Remember Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas and the famous pubic hair on the soda can incident?

That "incident" wasn't about someone's private life. It was about sexual harassment in the work place.

Here:

Quote:

Hill's testimony included a wide variety of language she allegedly was subjected to by Thomas that she found inappropriate:

He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes....On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess....Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"[3]
Can you see the difference?

Bill Scher 05-16-2010 10:12 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SaraK (Post 162041)
Christ, Scher, can you learn to stop constantly laughing at your own comments?

No, because I suck.

BigM 05-17-2010 01:37 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)
 
"In fact, the fight over Bork's nomination, noisy and voluble as it was, never departed from the issues of constitutional interpretation..."

Smile when you say that.

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

This is related to "issues of constitutional interpretation" in the same way that calling Obama a Marxist is a fair critique of his financial and health care policies.

As for Clarence Thomas, for me at least, his comments to Anita Hill pale next to the antics of our 42nd President. As discussion of Elena Kagan's sexual orientation pales besides the hatchet job done on Thomas' personal life by "respectable" journalists Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer in the appalling "Strange Justice."

rcocean 05-17-2010 01:48 PM

Re: Bork
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 162066)
That "incident" wasn't about someone's private life. It was about sexual harassment in the work place.

Here:
Can you see the difference?

Huh? Clinton's case WAS about sexual harassment. He sexually harassed Paula Jones while he was Governor of Arkansas. He lied under oath because he didn't want to pay Jones for sexually harassing her.

Having sex with Lewinsky in the Oval office - at work - while she was intern was also sexual harassment under HR guidelines in almost every major corporation.

But guess 'cause Billie Boy hated the 'Religious Right' it was OK.

AemJeff 05-17-2010 02:00 PM

Re: Bork
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 162171)
Huh? Clinton's case WAS about sexual harassment. He sexually harassed Paula Jones while he was Governor of Arkansas. He lied under oath because he didn't want to pay Jones for sexually harassing her.

Having sex with Lewinsky in the Oval office - at work - while she was intern was also sexual harassment under HR guidelines in almost every major corporation.

But guess 'cause Billie Boy hated the 'Religious Right' it was OK.

Lewinski initiated that encounter by showing her panties - that's an awfully technical definition of harassment you're depending on. "He sexually harassed Paula Jones" is tendentious and unproven, just like every other accusation that Clinton was involved in any non-consensual act. And even if the above weren't true, the comparison was with Clarence Thomas - Clinton is irrelevant here.

I'd say, by the way, that "hatred" is a much better description of the Religious Right's feelings toward Clinton (see Falwell, Jerry) than the reverse.

Ocean 05-17-2010 06:27 PM

Re: Bork
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 162171)
Huh? Clinton's case WAS about sexual harassment. He sexually harassed Paula Jones while he was Governor of Arkansas. He lied under oath because he didn't want to pay Jones for sexually harassing her.

Having sex with Lewinsky in the Oval office - at work - while she was intern was also sexual harassment under HR guidelines in almost every major corporation.

But guess 'cause Billie Boy hated the 'Religious Right' it was OK.

We are not discussing all the sexual scandals, alleged, proven or not, in the history of the U.S. The topic was limited the investigation of private life when there is a nominee to the Supreme Court.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.