Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2010, 04:01 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-14-2010, 05:06 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

Yes, she is.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-14-2010, 06:02 PM
Shouter Shouter is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 17
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-14-2010, 06:06 PM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-14-2010, 07:16 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shouter View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-14-2010, 08:17 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default 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)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-14-2010, 08:51 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default In Falwells defense

He was right about the teletubbies.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-14-2010, 08:53 PM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default The case for regime uncertainty

Bill makes it beautifully, not realizing (?) that it bodes ill for the economic recovery.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-14-2010, 09:39 PM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shouter View Post
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.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon

Last edited by listener; 05-14-2010 at 09:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-14-2010, 11:58 PM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default 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.
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-15-2010, 12:21 AM
Shouter Shouter is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 17
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-15-2010, 12:24 AM
Shouter Shouter is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 17
Default 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!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-15-2010, 12:25 AM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

Again, super cool amazing photographs!
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-15-2010, 12:29 AM
listener listener is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Amurka
Posts: 1,107
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shouter View Post
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.
__________________
"Nothing is always absolutely so." -- Theodore Sturgeon

Last edited by listener; 05-15-2010 at 12:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-15-2010, 06:09 PM
jimM47 jimM47 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-15-2010, 09:29 PM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: Bork

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimM47 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-16-2010, 03:45 AM
jimM47 jimM47 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-16-2010, 11:20 AM
SaraK SaraK is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 24
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-16-2010, 02:11 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Bork

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimM47 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-16-2010, 02:51 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Bork

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-16-2010, 10:12 PM
Bill Scher Bill Scher is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Hug It Out (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraK View Post
Christ, Scher, can you learn to stop constantly laughing at your own comments?
No, because I suck.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-17-2010, 01:37 PM
BigM BigM is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12
Default 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."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-17-2010, 01:48 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Bork

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2010, 02:00 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Bork

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
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.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 05-17-2010 at 02:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-17-2010, 06:27 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Bork

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 PM.


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