Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6437)

Bloggingheads 01-17-2011 12:58 PM

Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 

DenvilleSteve 01-17-2011 01:55 PM

arguably not insane
 
the arizona gunman was a heavy user of drugs. Sounds like he was high a lot. When he was ranting in class to the extent he was told not to come back to school, he was likely high. That would explain why the school administrators did not call in authorities to evaluate his mental stability. Granted, people who take drugs dont shoot people. But maybe the drugs shaped and warped his thinking. Place the blame for the shooting on lax enforcement of drug laws.

AemJeff 01-17-2011 02:25 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
It's not irrational to point out that Gabrielle Giffords felt threatened by Sarah Palin's personalized gun-sight symbolization, and then somebody attempted to assassinate Giffords. Nobody knows what Loughner saw or what motivated him, and regardless of whether that motivation had anything to do with Palin or Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" or anything else, the fact remains - Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin concatenated a gunsight with her name and location, and after Sharon Angle slyly asserted that political assassination was - at least - a topic open for discussion regarding (specifically!) Arizona politics. Both Glenn and (particularly) Ann are guilty of trying to explicitly ignore those facts.

rcocean 01-17-2011 02:25 PM

Great DV with two of the best Bloggingheads
 
Informative, intelligent, and interesting. I hope these two do another DV.

rcocean 01-17-2011 02:33 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 194988)
It's not irrational to point out that Gabrielle Giffords felt threatened by Sarah Palin's personalized gun-sight symbolization, and then somebody attempted to assassinate Giffords. Nobody knows what Loughner saw or what motivated him, and regardless of whether that motivation had anything to do with Palin or Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" or anything else, the fact remains - Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin concatenated a gunsight with her name and location, and after Sharon Angle slyly asserted that political assassination was - at least - a topic open for discussion regarding (specifically!) Arizona politics. Both Glenn and (particularly) Ann are guilty of trying to explicitly ignore those facts.

As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.

AemJeff 01-17-2011 02:34 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 194988)
It's not irrational to point out that Gabrielle Giffords felt threatened by Sarah Palin's personalized gun-sight symbolization, and then somebody attempted to assassinate Giffords. Nobody knows what Loughner saw or what motivated him, and regardless of whether that motivation had anything to do with Palin or Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" or anything else, the fact remains - Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin concatenated a gunsight with her name and location, and after Sharon Angle slyly asserted that political assassination was - at least - a topic open for discussion regarding (specifically!) Arizona politics. Both Glenn and (particularly) Ann are guilty of trying to explicitly ignore those facts.

And, to amplify: There is no "War on Metaphor." There are specific metaphors, that when they're directly coupled to somebody's name (e.g. a gun sight) that are obviously out-of-bounds. Another is putting an opponent's initials on a target at a shooting range (as happened to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.) "Second Amendment remedies" ought to be seen as a direct threat, not a metaphor at all.

Althouse should be targeted for ridicule for suggesting otherwise.

jimM47 01-17-2011 03:40 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Well said, Glen. "I know the genre."

AemJeff 01-17-2011 03:42 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 194990)
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.

Calling the argument I made above "convoluted" is a pretty extraordinary use of that term. If rc can't understand the not-very-subtle distinction between making a causal argument and simply calling out irresponsible behavior illuminated by sensational events, I'm not sure I can help.

Florian 01-17-2011 04:09 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 195000)
Well said, Glen. "I know the genre."

Mais ce n'est certainement pas un type bon chic, bon genre (Jeremiah Wright).

Is the over-the-top rhetoric of preachers like Wright less destructive of civility than the over-the-top rhetoric of Sharon Angle et al.? I wonder.

bjkeefe 01-17-2011 04:50 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 195005)
Is the over-the-top rhetoric of preachers like Wright less destructive of civility than the over-the-top rhetoric of Sharon Angle et al.? I wonder.

I don't think that's a fair question, because it implies that there is some sort of one to one correspondence in occurrences. As far as I ever heard about Jeremiah Wright, there were two or three snippets about which all of the noise was made, and at least one of them ("God damn America") had to be stripped of context to make it look bad. Compare that to the torrent of violent rhetoric coming from hundreds of prominent Republicans and conservative media figures, especially over the past two and a half years (e.g.).

And come to that, compare the amount of coverage Wright's few words got in the MSM -- which was wall to wall for weeks, and that's not even counting how long the conservative media tried to keep it front and center -- to the amount of MSM discussion of the rhetoric of the RWNM up until two weeks ago.

Florian 01-17-2011 05:20 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 195009)
I don't think that's a fair question, because it implies that there is some sort of one to one correspondence in occurrences. As far as I ever heard about Jeremiah Wright, there were two or three snippets about which all of the noise was made, and at least one of them ("God damn America") had to be stripped of context to make it look bad. Compare that to the torrent of violent rhetoric coming from hundreds of prominent Republicans and conservative media figures, especially over the past two and a half years (e.g.).

And come to that, compare the amount of coverage Wright's few words got in the MSM -- which was wall to wall for weeks, and that's not even counting how long the conservative media tried to keep it front and center -- to the amount of MSM discussion of the rhetoric of the RWNM up until two weeks ago.

Remember: I live in another country, I seldom watch teevee, and I am utterly contemptuous of everything American "conservatives" say on every subject.

So I plead not guilty.

BornAgainDemocrat 01-17-2011 05:27 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Wow! I wouldn't dare face off against either one of these super-talented talkers in public, especially over such hot-button issues. And yet there they were confronting each other with ease. Surely good manners had something to do with it? I do wish they'd come out together against those 20-clip semi-automatic Glock pistols however. You can't stop every psychopath, agreed, but you can stop them from killing so many so fast.

jimM47 01-17-2011 05:33 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
I don't know how one would really make a more/less comparison. Presumably factors beyond the speech itself, like how far it travels beyond people familiar with the genre, would have a significant effect on the level of incivility created.

My point was more that I admire the sentiment here, that it is important to understand speech and cultural conventions in their own context, to try to accurately assess the mindset that produces speech, and not to delegitimize whole subcultures and ways of talking and thinking because they do not conform to the expectations of mass culture. I think it's especially important because we are only becoming more, not less, likely to see small snippets of speech from other sub-cultures without surrounding context, or the sort of familiarity that would breed comfort and acceptance.

I bring the point up because I don't think the comparison with Sharon Angle is inapropos. My knowledge of Angle is limited such that I can't state this with absolute certainty, but I do suspect that many people decrying Angle's statements are failing to understand its meaning in the proper context. For instance, if I read AemJeff's comments upthread correctly, he seems to read Angle's comments about "Second Amendment remedies" as endorsing, or at least flirting with, the idea of political assassination as a tool of policy. It's a poor politician who allows herself to say things that might be interpreted this way, but I don't think this is what she said.

Admittedly, my direct knowledge of her particular statements is fully covered by this clip, but listening to her statements I too think "I know the genre." I think it reflects a paradoxical and somewhat self-aggrandizing, always-on-the-edge faith in democracy, by which activists always see a grim future just over the horizon, while tacitly recognizing that the horizon will never be reached, in part because of their own democratic participation. I think it reflects a view of tyranny that places law first, and lawmakers far second. I think it reflects a romanticism that with the brandishing of guns, Americans could keep government from taking their property or imprisoning them in order to enforce an unjust or unconstitutional law. And I think it reflects a view of government as an outsider to the desires and will of the people.

Clearly Angle was mistaken to use these words as a candidate for public office. What she thought would signal intimacy and familiarity with people she imagined to be a majority of voters, seems instead to have signaled her disconnect with the true majority of voters. But separating the question of what she should or could have said as a politician, and concentrating instead on the speech itself, I find myself quite uncomfortable with the idea that words such as these should be delegitimized. Because I do think they come from a very human place, and are animated by ideas and concerns that I do not have to agree with to find sympathy for. And my suspicion is that the people who seem so alarmed at the Tea Party and the language of the right as of late, and whose reaction to the Tucson shooting was "this was expected," are in large part failing to understand and contextual the words they are afraid of, and to realize just how long they have been in use without causing violence.

None of this is to say that there can't be legitimate disagreements with the sentiments actually expressed by the idea of second amendment remedies. The absence of political assassination does not mean the absence of the threat of violence. I'm sure that Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Wonderment would all argue that non-violent civil disobedience to illegitimate use of government force is morally superior to violent resistance to such force. But it seems to me that this question has been an open and legitimate one in our country, even if it is now applicable only hypothetically.

jimM47 01-17-2011 05:53 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 194992)
There is no "War on Metaphor." There are specific metaphors, that when they're directly coupled to somebody's name (e.g. a gun sight) that are obviously out-of-bounds.

It seems like you are carving out a specific position, but my impression is that it is not uniformly the one taken by others. Yes, some people are decrying specific metaphors, but others are decrying rightist rhetoric with a much broader brush, and still others seem to be blaming the intensity of feeling on the right, without regard to specific language at all. Perhaps Ann and Glenn should also have addressed your specific argument, but I don't think they were attacking non-existent arguments either.

TwinSwords 01-17-2011 06:00 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 195000)
Well said, Glen. "I know the genre."

Excellent dingalink. Great point by Glenn.

Jeremiah Wright's sermons were available to stream or download from his church's web site, and they were sold in the church store. Republican operatives reviewed them all, and from hundreds of hours of sermons, were only able to find one or two clips, a few seconds of tape, to become hysterical about. But it was enough to declare a National Emergency and turn into about eight solid weeks of 'round the clock, saturation coverage in the media (during the March-May 2008 timeframe, IIR). From a few seconds, conservatives have built a myth of "Obama spent 20 years sitting in the church listening to that kind of speech." No. "That kind of speech" constituted a few seconds out of 20 years.

bjkeefe 01-17-2011 06:03 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 195014)
Remember: I live in another country, I seldom watch teevee, and I am utterly contemptuous of everything American "conservatives" say on every subject.

So I plead not guilty.

If that's your plea, that's your plea, but I'd say that you had only to follow the link I offered to illustrate my point if you really wanted to think about your own question.

TwinSwords 01-17-2011 06:06 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 194988)
It's not irrational to point out that Gabrielle Giffords felt threatened by Sarah Palin's personalized gun-sight symbolization, and then somebody attempted to assassinate Giffords. Nobody knows what Loughner saw or what motivated him, and regardless of whether that motivation had anything to do with Palin or Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" or anything else, the fact remains - Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin concatenated a gunsight with her name and location, and after Sharon Angle slyly asserted that political assassination was - at least - a topic open for discussion regarding (specifically!) Arizona politics. Both Glenn and (particularly) Ann are guilty of trying to explicitly ignore those facts.

Nice post.

TwinSwords 01-17-2011 06:08 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 195001)
Calling the argument I made above "convoluted" is a pretty extraordinary use of that term.

He's just reaching for any big word he can throw at you at this point. It doesn't matter whether the word actually describes what you said. It just matters that it makes him feel better to throw it.

TwinSwords 01-17-2011 06:12 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 194992)
And, to amplify: There is no "War on Metaphor." There are specific metaphors, that when they're directly coupled to somebody's name (e.g. a gun sight) that are obviously out-of-bounds. Another is putting an opponent's initials on a target at a shooting range (as happened to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.) "Second Amendment remedies" ought to be seen as a direct threat, not a metaphor at all.

Althouse should be targeted for ridicule for suggesting otherwise.

You nailed it. The problem really is not the use of metaphor. Conservatives have been trying to distract us with that red herring since Giffords was shot. The problems are the repeated death threats and threats to overthrow the government which have been a constant feature of the conservative movement (though, clearly, not every individual member, or even a majority of members) since it became apparent that they were going to lose the 2008 elections.

It's also worth pointing out that this is the identical dynamic that played out in the 1990s. The problem then wasn't conservative use of metaphor, but conservative use of murder and terrorism in a political context.

Those conservatives who have not personally indulged in treasonous and murderous rhetoric since 2008 have, nevertheless, provided cover for it -- denied it, excused it, etc. And that's why they are now apoplectic: finally the national conversation has focused on this important story.

rfrobison 01-17-2011 06:13 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 194988)
It's not irrational to point out that Gabrielle Giffords felt threatened by Sarah Palin's personalized gun-sight symbolization, and then somebody attempted to assassinate Giffords. Nobody knows what Loughner saw or what motivated him, and regardless of whether that motivation had anything to do with Palin or Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" or anything else, the fact remains - Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin concatenated a gunsight with her name and location, and after Sharon Angle slyly asserted that political assassination was - at least - a topic open for discussion regarding (specifically!) Arizona politics. Both Glenn and (particularly) Ann are guilty of trying to explicitly ignore those facts.

I have a question for you, Jeff: If President Obama, as a candidate, says something like, "If Republicans bring a knife to this fight, we bring a gun," is he guilty of contributing to the climate of hate that pushes deranged people like Loughner over the edge?

If you want to argue that the tone of political rhetoric has been excessively hostile, I'm sympathetic. What I have more trouble accepting is the notion that the problem is "overwhelmingly coming from the right," or however Paul Krugman's latest pronouncement has it.

Plenty of nasty things were said about Bush during his term. One guy wrote a book fantasizing about his assassination. And when some on my side of the aisle complained, they were immediately shouted down by the "anti-censorship" crowd.

If we need a more civil tone, that's one thing. And again, I'm inclined to agree. If the argument is: "We'd have a more civil tone and a better country if you guys on the right would kindly shut up," well, I don't think you're going to have much luck.

rcocean 01-17-2011 06:16 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 194990)
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.

Nice Post.

bjkeefe 01-17-2011 06:20 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 195029)
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 194990)
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.

Nice Post.

The back-patting is out of control.

Baltimoron 01-17-2011 06:57 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 194990)
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

You're conveniently confusing a legal defense of Loughner for a moral or causal one. As a matter of fact, it's hard to argue that Palin wasn't the proximate cause of Loughner's behavior.

AemJeff 01-17-2011 07:05 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 195019)
It seems like you are carving out a specific position, but my impression is that it is not uniformly the one taken by others. Yes, some people are decrying specific metaphors, but others are decrying rightist rhetoric with a much broader brush, and still others seem to be blaming the intensity of feeling on the right, without regard to specific language at all. Perhaps Ann and Glenn should also have addressed your specific argument, but I don't think they were attacking non-existent arguments either.

I'll accept the criticism. I've been following the reactions on both sides pretty closely, and I think my take on this at least closely resembles the dominant argument being made by most people on the Left; and I also believe that much of the reaction from the Right has been against, if not quite a straw-man, a less credible version and less widely held version of the argument. It's definitely true that my impression is purely anecdotal, though.

AemJeff 01-17-2011 07:16 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrobison (Post 195028)
I have a question for you, Jeff: If President Obama, as a candidate says, something like, "If Republicans bring a knife to this fight, we bring a gun," is he guilty of contributing to the climate of hate that pushes deranged people like Loughner over the edge?

If you want to argue that the tone of political rhetoric has been excessively hostile, I'm sympathetic. What I have more trouble accepting is the notion that the problem is "overwhelmingly coming from the right," or however Paul Krugman's latest pronouncement has it.

Plenty of nasty things were said about Bush during his term. One guy wrote a book fantasizing about his assassination. And when some on my side of the aisle complained, they were immediately shouted down by the "anti-censorship" crowd.

If we need a more civil tone, that one thing. And again, I'm inclined to agree. If the argument is: "We'd have a more civil tone and a better country if you guys on the right would kindly shut up," well, I don't think you're going to have much luck.

Rob, I have no problem at all with Obama's phrase. I don't have a problem with the terms "target," or "taking aim." I have a problem with assassination fantasies, regardless of the object's party - so, Democrats fantasizing about killing George W. Bush bother me at least as much as Sarah Palin's cross-hairs. I'd say emphatically that the strong preponderance of over-the-top overwrought, out-of-bounds rhetoric is currently spewing from one direction, but it's never the case that these things are completely monolithic, and it's easy enough to find people on the Left who deserve equal criticism. It's very difficult to find lefties with this problem who have the status of Palin, Beck, or even Angle, however. (And while Krugman has gone further than I would, I don't think he's said anything nearly bad as the people I named. I'm happy to debate that assertion.)

BornAgainDemocrat 01-17-2011 07:27 PM

Need for new Gun Control laws.
 
From latest CNN poll: "Six in ten favor a ban on semi-automatic assault guns, and on the kind of extended ammunition clips which Jared Loughner allegedly used in Arizona."

So why aren't we hearing more about this?

AemJeff 01-17-2011 07:34 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 195017)
I don't know how one would really make a more/less comparison. Presumably factors beyond the speech itself, like how far it travels beyond people familiar with the genre, would have a significant effect on the level of incivility created.

My point was more that I admire the sentiment here, that it is important to understand speech and cultural conventions in their own context, to try to accurately assess the mindset that produces speech, and not to delegitimize whole subcultures and ways of talking and thinking because they do not conform to the expectations of mass culture. I think it's especially important because we are only becoming more, not less, likely to see small snippets of speech from other sub-cultures without surrounding context, or the sort of familiarity that would breed comfort and acceptance.

I bring the point up because I don't think the comparison with Sharon Angle is inapropos. My knowledge of Angle is limited such that I can't state this with absolute certainty, but I do suspect that many people decrying Angle's statements are failing to understand its meaning in the proper context. For instance, if I read AemJeff's comments upthread correctly, he seems to read Angle's comments about "Second Amendment remedies" as endorsing, or at least flirting with, the idea of political assassination as a tool of policy. It's a poor politician who allows herself to say things that might be interpreted this way, but I don't think this is what she said.

Admittedly, my direct knowledge of her particular statements is fully covered by this clip, but listening to her statements I too think "I know the genre." I think it reflects a paradoxical and somewhat self-aggrandizing, always-on-the-edge faith in democracy, by which activists always see a grim future just over the horizon, while tacitly recognizing that the horizon will never be reached, in part because of their own democratic participation. I think it reflects a view of tyranny that places law first, and lawmakers far second. I think it reflects a romanticism that with the brandishing of guns, Americans could keep government from taking their property or imprisoning them in order to enforce an unjust or unconstitutional law. And I think it reflects a view of government as an outsider to the desires and will of the people.

Clearly Angle was mistaken to use these words as a candidate for public office. What she thought would signal intimacy and familiarity with people she imagined to be a majority of voters, seems instead to have signaled her disconnect with the true majority of voters. But separating the question of what she should or could have said as a politician, and concentrating instead on the speech itself, I find myself quite uncomfortable with the idea that words such as these should be delegitimized. Because I do think they come from a very human place, and are animated by ideas and concerns that I do not have to agree with to find sympathy for. And my suspicion is that the people who seem so alarmed at the Tea Party and the language of the right as of late, and whose reaction to the Tucson shooting was "this was expected," are in large part failing to understand and contextual the words they are afraid of, and to realize just how long they have been in use without causing violence.

None of this is to say that there can't be legitimate disagreements with the sentiments actually expressed by the idea of second amendment remedies. The absence of political assassination does not mean the absence of the threat of violence. I'm sure that Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Wonderment would all argue that non-violent civil disobedience to illegitimate use of government force is morally superior to violent resistance to such force. But it seems to me that this question has been an open and legitimate one in our country, even if it is now applicable only hypothetically.

I don't think it really matters what Sharon Angle believes regarding what she said. I have a problem with the form that's separate from what I believe she had in mind. I think she (correctly) believes that some forms of rhetorical extremity, particularly extreme ballistic metaphors (in Chris Matthews' useful phrasing), represent a political gamble she's more likely to win than not.

AemJeff 01-17-2011 07:37 PM

Re: Need for new Gun Control laws.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 195043)
From latest CNN poll: "Six in ten favor a ban on semi-automatic assault guns, and on the kind of extended ammunition clips which Jared Loughner allegedly used in Arizona."

So why aren't we hearing more about this?

Because the NRA has poisoned the water. Almost nobody want fingerprints on anything that could be construed as restrictive. Take a look at the reception Peter King has received for his relatively mild proposition.

chiwhisoxx 01-17-2011 08:00 PM

Re: Need for new Gun Control laws.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 195045)
Because the NRA has poisoned the water. Almost nobody want fingerprints on anything that could be construed as restrictive. Take a look at the reception Peter King has received for his relatively mild proposition.

Mild, but stupid and almost certainly pointless.

carkrueger 01-17-2011 08:02 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
I love that Ann Althouse is a fellow "Ditto Head." So awesome!

AemJeff 01-17-2011 08:05 PM

Re: Need for new Gun Control laws.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 195049)
Mild, but stupid and almost certainly pointless.

That's a valid point of view; but the larger point was about the proportionality (or the lack of same) of the response.

badhatharry 01-17-2011 08:28 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 195017)
I don't know how one would really make a more/less comparison...

very, very nice.

badhatharry 01-17-2011 08:40 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 195022)
Excellent dingalink. Great point by Glenn.

Jeremiah Wright's sermons were available to stream or download from his church's web site, and they were sold in the church store. Republican operatives reviewed them all, and from hundreds of hours of sermons, were only able to find one or two clips, a few seconds of tape, to become hysterical about. But it was enough to declare a National Emergency and turn into about eight solid weeks of 'round the clock, saturation coverage in the media (during the March-May 2008 timeframe, IIR). From a few seconds, conservatives have built a myth of "Obama spent 20 years sitting in the church listening to that kind of speech." No. "That kind of speech" constituted a few seconds out of 20 years.

Except that Wright's overarching theme of calling the system in America racist and genocidal didn't take just twenty seconds to get out. I think he talked about it a whole lot.

But let him talk! He's certainly entitled!

badhatharry 01-17-2011 08:42 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baltimoron (Post 195038)
You're conveniently confusing a legal defense of Loughner for a moral or causal one. As a matter of fact, it's hard not to argue that Palin wasn't the proximate cause of Loughner's behavior.

Well, it's not hard for some people.

PS I think you have inserted one negative too many.

MargaretH 01-17-2011 08:52 PM

Re: Great DV with two of the best Bloggingheads
 
I agree. A very good pair. Well-balanced. Both viewpoints come across more intelligibly to me.

ohreally 01-17-2011 09:17 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 195057)
Except that Wright's overarching theme of calling the system in America racist and genocidal didn't take just twenty seconds to get out. I think he talked about it a whole lot.

If you're right then the guy must have been the most ineffective preacher in the history of preaching, given Obama's imperialist policies and his enduring indifference for the plight of poor blacks.

badhatharry 01-17-2011 09:54 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
1) I like Glenn better after this diavlog than I ever have before.

2) I liked President Obama's speech.

3) I thought the applause was inappropriate.

4) I think the media response as pertains to how Obama's mojo is back was inappropriate.

badhatharry 01-17-2011 09:56 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 195064)
If you're right then the guy must have been the most ineffective preacher in the history of preaching, given Obama's imperialist policies and his enduring indifference for the plight of poor blacks.

You always have such an interesting take on things!!!

jimM47 01-17-2011 09:58 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 195044)
I don't think it really matters what Sharon Angle believes regarding what she said. I have a problem with the form that's separate from what I believe she had in mind.

Apologies if I'm asking you repeat something you've explained elsewhere, but I confess I am not quite discerning your position. If your problem is not with what Angle (or another user or rhetoric) means by the speech, I presume your problem is with some consequence of the speech. But it also appears that you aren't arguing that the Tucson shootings were the consequence of the rhetoric you have a problem with. So it's unclear to me which other consequences of the rhetoric you are concerned with, and how to square that with your emphasis on rhetoric that can be perceived as advocating political assassination.

Ocean 01-17-2011 10:40 PM

Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)
 
When you don't have good arguments to counter a claim, second best is to muddy the waters and use reasons that counter another, somewhat related but not the same claim.

So that's what's being discussed now. Instead of talking about violent rhetoric (cross hairs, reload, second amendment remedies, and the like) we talk about lack of civility in political discourse. How convenient! Now we can find more examples on both sides, and bring down the suggestion of toning down invitations to violence as being too restrictive to metaphorical speech.

Ann embraced partisanship in this diavlog and went full blast using every argument she could find to defend her side. If she couldn't criticize Obama's speech, then she had to criticize the location, the audience, the Native American participation. Something negative had to be said. Something may stick. Husband couldn't listen to the speech because he was so upset about the audience cheering. And she went on and on trashing as much as she could as she encountered in her way.

Glenn was too bland. He pushed back here and there, but let her get away with too much.

I usually find something, even if small that I rescue from Ann's participation. Not today.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 PM.

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