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
  #41  
Old 12-29-2007, 09:57 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A good one

David_PA:

To each his or her own. However ...

Quote:
I think you missed my point, Brandon. The vlogs don't all have to be Rosa-like analyses. Sometimes - fairly often in fact - what passes for depth coming from Robert Wright or Rosa is just intellectual posturing - the long-winded way to say something that can be expressed more simply and clearly.
... them's fightin' words.

I'll grant that some people on BH.tv pontificate -- the canonical example is that guy who took the phone away from his ear every time he started talking, whose name escapes me and that's probably just as well -- but I don't accept either of your examples. Both Rosa and Bob are smart, and have an admirable reluctance to oversimplify. Could they, at times, be more succinct? Yes. But they don't posture by any stretch.

Quote:
Althouse was fine. Still not really sure what you don't like about her - but maybe you said a while back, before I'd started tuning in.
It doesn't bear a long-winded answer. If you're really interested in looking beyond this page, you could search the old forum (or wait for its contents to be imported into the new set-up). There you'll find very serious, thoughtful, arguments that have never been made in such detail or with such care. ;^)

But since you asked, here's a short summary of my complaints.

Basically, I think she's vacuous -- she's has never come close to making me think. She's supposed to be a law professor, but has yet to say anything that I've heard to make me believe it. (Note, for example, her self-promotion of her latest submission to Legal Times. Somewhere, Harriet Miers is weeping.)

Okay, she doesn't want to talk about her day job. Fine. As I see it, the rest of her schtick consists of saying she's interested in feminism and pop culture, while failing to offer any in-depth awareness of either of these subjects. She's a feminist the way some of my relatives are Irish -- they only bring the Erin Go Bragh when they want an excuse to take offense. And as for pop culture: as I said above, her awareness of the world seems to stem solely from glancing at the NY Times. I'd add another source: an obvious obsession about feeling frumpy around her students, which manifests as shrill and incessant complaints about about pop culture, invariably beginning with "I just don't understand ..."

And then there's her on-camera personality. She's loud. She interrupts too often. She's long-winded, and worse, meandering. Her sense of humor begins and ends with the sort of double entendres that most of us found tiresome by the end of junior high. She smirks. She talks about blogging way too much, as though she's the only one in the world who does this. She has a giant ego, a vicious streak, and a very thin skin -- she's eager to say catty things about people she doesn't like or agree with, but has a tantrum whenever it comes back at her.

I come to BH.tv to listen to people who are smarter than I am discuss topics more deeply than I've considered them. AA doesn't deliver, and it bugs me that she gets to be on so often, when there are a million other voices I'd rather be hearing. I acknowledge that other visitors to this site may not share my exact desires, but it seems to me that there are 500 channels out there, filled with the same sort of airy chit-chat and shallow thinking that Ann Althouse epitomizes. Why can't those other people just turn on their TVs?

So much for a short summary. Sorry about that, Floyd.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-29-2007, 10:57 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
David_PA:
I come to BH.tv to listen to people who are smarter than I am discuss topics more deeply than I've considered them. AA doesn't deliver, and it bugs me that she gets to be on so often, when there are a million other voices I'd rather be hearing. I acknowledge that other visitors to this site may not share my exact desires, but it seems to me that there are 500 channels out there, filled with the same sort of airy chit-chat and shallow thinking that Ann Althouse epitomizes. Why can't those other people just turn on their TVs?

So much for a short summary. Sorry about that, Floyd.
Floyd??

Ha - didn't realize you and Ann had such a history. Well, if she has the guts to come back on BHtv after absorbing that rant, you at least have to give her credit for not being thin-skinned, unless she's deaf.

Maybe we should pair Ann up with you, B!

She did interrupt too much in the blogging segment, which was probably too silly to have included, esp. with Stephen playing too much the neophyte.

But, in other segments, she was more substantive. Stephen actually expands on one of Ann's points about Hillary on his blog - that her secretiveness about her views during Bill's admin put her in a double bind. Not only is the secrecy itself a problem, but because of it Hillary isn't taking credit for any independent thinking she may have had during the Bill era and thus is in the anti-feminist position of saying that her strength is that she was "there", but as a wife, not as a politico.

I don't recall your trying to run off Charlotte Hayes for her far-short-of-smart stances.

I'm definitely not taking the position that Ann is of the caliber of Rosa or Robert. I'm only saying that I don't think she deserves such castigation. Surely, there are other BHtv vloggers than Ann who don't discuss topics "more deeply than you've considered them" or who aren't "smarter than you".

Last edited by David_PA; 12-30-2007 at 12:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:20 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A good one

David_PA:

Quote:
Floyd??
Sorry about that, David. I guess you're not as fond of obscure Pulp Fiction quotes as I am. That's what Butch said (under his breath) when he found out from the taxi driver that he'd killed the other boxer.

Quote:
This vlog was a much better conversation than the one with Bruce Feiler. He wasn't conversing at all. I don't see you trying to run him off.
Again, a matter of taste, upon which we differ. I did have a thing or two to say about his style, but I didn't think he was a disaster. He seemed to me to be knowledgeable and well-prepared, if a bit unpleasant in manner.

Quote:
And, I don't recall your trying to run off Charlotte Hayes for her far-short-of-smart stances.
Musta missed this, this, and this.

Okay, I didn't explicitly try to run her off, but I think I was clear enough about hoping she'd never return.

Which leads me to the next part. Bruce has been on three times, Charlotte once. Ann? Let's ask the handy search page ... Result? Twenty times.

Quote:
I'm definitely not taking the position that Ann is of the caliber of Rosa or Robert. I'm only saying that I don't think she deserves such castigation.
Well, you did ask me what I thought. I'll leave it alone after this post.

Quote:
Surely, there are other BHtv vloggers than Ann who don't discuss topics "more deeply than you've considered them" or who aren't "smarter than you".
Perhaps. (I'm interested to hear your nominations.) But none come close to the badness of Ann or the frequency of her appearances.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:34 AM
DisturbingClown DisturbingClown is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 36
Default Re: A good one

RE: Ron Paul

Any non-mainstream candidate is going to have some crazies as a portion of his support. Hell, I'm sure the mainstream ones do as well. I understand Paul isn't going to be to everyone's taste but pointing out some weirdos who support him isn't any sort of substantive critique. He has publicly stated that he thinsk the 9-11 conspiracies are silly, so it's unfair for people to keep on smearing him with the association.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:50 AM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
David_PA:

Sorry about that, David. I guess you're not as fond of obscure Pulp Fiction quotes as I am. That's what Butch said (under his breath) when he found out from the taxi driver that he'd killed the other boxer.

Perhaps. (I'm interested to hear your nominations.) But none come close to the badness of Ann or the frequency of her appearances.
Sorry, missed the Floyd reference and it's one of my favorite movies.

Let's start with Bill Scher & Conn Carrol, who shall we say aren't exactly boy geniuses. Their latest was mostly yawn-ish, with an insight only here or there. It made *me" feel a little smarter though ;-).

This was the first time I'd seen Ann, since I only started coming to BHtv about a month and a half ago. I'll grant that she could get tiresome. However, Stephen, on the other hand, if you could get him talking more would be even more interesting. If Ann is the only attractor who could get him back, would you consider that a fair trade?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:03 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A good one

David_PA:

Quote:
Sorry, missed the Floyd reference and it's one of my favorite movies.
Not to worry. I did say it was obscure. For some reason, that movie really rang the cherries with me. For a year or two after it came out, it was almost impossible for me to get through a conversation without letting loose a direct quote or two. Pretty soon, the sight of me about to take a bite out of a cheeseburger would cause immediate evacuation of the surrounding area.

In my own defense, I have never once said, "Gar蔞n! Coffee!" to any waitress. (That I didn't already know, I mean.)

Quote:
Let's start with Bill Scher & Conn Carrol, who shall we say aren't exactly boy geniuses. Their latest was mostly yawn-ish, with an insight only here or there.
I agree, they're not among my favorite BH.tvers, either. And I also agree that they're not geniuses, although I'd say they're fairly well-read in their field and always come prepared. Their blogosphere wrap-up thing is getting a little old, especially now that Conn isn't in the blog aggregation business anymore. But they're not brutally painful -- I'm always up for a little political gossip that I might have missed during my own trawling. They don't make me hostile. Sleepy, maybe, at worst.

Quote:
... Stephen, on the other hand, if you could get him talking more would be even more interesting. If Ann is the only attractor who could get him back, would you consider that a fair trade?
Steve was quite good in his debut with Bob, and I had hoped they'd bring him back a lot sooner than they did. Everyone wants to see him paired with Mickey, which Mickey flat-out vetoed for a while, although he did show a hint of relenting recently. I'd like to see him paired with pretty much any conservative (he and Bob share too many political opinions; the debut was fun because it was mostly gossip about Mickey).

Any conservative other than Ann, that is. As I noted in my opening salvo in this thread, I had been skipping her appearances for months and only watched because Steve was on. By now, my answer should be obvious, but for the record, on your trade offer: I'd regretfully miss Steve for the benefit of missing Ann.

Come to that, it's hard to think of what would get me ever to watch her again. Which I'm sure will come as a relief to a big chunk of the rest of the forum readers.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:17 AM
Incompetence Dodger Incompetence Dodger is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 45
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post

This was the first time I'd seen Ann, since I only started coming to BHtv about a month and a half ago. I'll grant that she could get tiresome.
Well, that explains it. You've walked into the middle of the movie, so of course you don't understand what all the fuss is about. I'm only halfway through this diavlog so far, so while it could go off the rails in the second half, I'd say this is one of Ann's better performances (as someone upthread noted, maybe all the sense on Steven's side of the screen bled over). If it were my first exposure to her, I'd be wondering what Brendan and the others are on about, too. If you really are interested in the background to all the aminus, I suggest looking at past appearances in the following order: 1) Ann and Garance Franke-Ruta; 2) the Ann and Bob Wright diavlog that followed immediately afterward; 3) Ann and Robin Givhan; 4) Ann and Jonah Goldberg. Enjoy!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:27 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: An Complete Waste of Steve Kaus's Appearance

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Many here seem to be suffering from ADS - Althouse Derangement Syndrome. My, the BHTV Lefties never forgive or Forget, and they seem to be a little sexist too.
They are godless democrats. possibly possessed by satan. Contrary points of view sting them like holy water in an exorcism. What I cant figure out is how can democrats avoid facts so frequently ( the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a grave threat to the world today ), yet they all appear to reach the same political conclusions.

-Steve
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:38 AM
human human is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3
Default Re: The Forgotten Carrots Edition

How else can the spread of nuclear weapons be stopped? By making a real effort to rid the entire world of them, beginning with our obscenely large stockpile.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:24 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: The Forgotten Carrots Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by human View Post
How else can the spread of nuclear weapons be stopped? By making a real effort to rid the entire world of them, beginning with our obscenely large stockpile.
I dont see how that works. What are the sequence of events you predict will take place? The US gets rid of its nukes. Do Russia, China, NK, Israel, France, India, Pakistan and the UK follow and destroy theirs?

Better, in my opinion, to have invaded Iraq and removed the Baathists from power. That reduced tensions in the area ( in terms of countries attacking each other ), which lessened greatly the need of Iran to have nukes of their own.

The facts support this view. In 2003, after Saddam and the Baathists were removed from power, Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program.

-Steve
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:51 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
I'm inclined to agree with rcocean whose post above gives a possible reason for the negativity - that the BHtv regulars are a little sexist.
Wow, Dave. A little sexist? Have you actually seen any of the folks who have expressed reservations about Althouse generally beating up on the female diavloggers here? In what way is Althouse, whose welcome among commenters here was damaged by her obviously disingenuous attack on another female diavlogger and her obvious pleasure in the reaction ("I've gone viral!" - Ann Althouse), representative of women generally? She's a self-promoting bully and last I checked, that was a gender-neutral observation.

There is a core of conservative commenters here who are constantly bitching about the lack of respect they get from the commentariat here. It's dishing this sort of random, fact free horse manure that damages their reputations, not the point on the political spectrum they occupy.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:26 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Wow, Dave. A little sexist? Have you actually seen any of the folks who have expressed reservations about Althouse generally beating up on the female diavloggers here? In what way is Althouse, whose welcome among commenters here was damaged by her obviously disingenuous attack on another female diavlogger and her obvious pleasure in the reaction ("I've gone viral!" - Ann Althouse), representative of women generally? She's a self-promoting bully and last I checked, that was a gender-neutral observation.

There is a core of conservative commenters here who are constantly bitching about the lack of respect they get from the commentariat here. It's dishing this sort of random, fact free horse manure that damages their reputations, not the point on the political spectrum they occupy.
Ok, so I was wrong about that. The negative reaction to AA didn't have anything to do with sexism. Having not seen any Althouse diavlogs before, I didn't understand the reason for the negative reactions and thought that the sexism claim put forth by rcocean might have been correct. Notice that I said "inclined" to agree in my original post. I should have said, "Is there any merit to the claim made by "rcocean" that the negative comments about Althouse have a sexism component?"

It's a lot more clear now what the problems are with AA, though I'd need to go back and review the 4 diavlogs that 'Incompetence Dodger' recommends to get a really clear picture. I'll try to find the time to at least review parts of these because I don't have any idea what AA's views are. However, with what's been said, it's going to be really hard to get up enough interest to review them. Will probably just accept the prevalent view here of AA and leave it at that.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:28 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by Incompetence Dodger View Post
Well, that explains it. You've walked into the middle of the movie, so of course you don't understand what all the fuss is about. I'm only halfway through this diavlog so far, so while it could go off the rails in the second half, I'd say this is one of Ann's better performances (as someone upthread noted, maybe all the sense on Steven's side of the screen bled over). If it were my first exposure to her, I'd be wondering what Brendan and the others are on about, too. If you really are interested in the background to all the aminus, I suggest looking at past appearances in the following order: 1) Ann and Garance Franke-Ruta; 2) the Ann and Bob Wright diavlog that followed immediately afterward; 3) Ann and Robin Givhan; 4) Ann and Jonah Goldberg. Enjoy!
Thanks - I should do this but as I said in the post above, it will be really hard to get up enough interest to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:33 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: An Complete Waste of Steve Kaus's Appearance

DenvilleSteve:

Quote:
What I cant figure out is how can democrats avoid facts so frequently ( the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a grave threat to the world today ), yet they all appear to reach the same political conclusions.
It seems to me that a simpler theory is this: Democrats don't ignore facts nearly as much as you think, and that is why they share a lot of conclusions.

And let's not forget which party dismissed the other as "the reality-based community."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:35 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: The Major League Baseball Players Association: a union we all should loathe

There has not been or probably will there probably never will be a defamation lawsuit brought by any athlete accused of doping. Now, why is this the case? It has been a part of Anglo law for hundreds of years. There are I am sure plenty of talented lawyers out there who specialize in it. Could it be that Roger Clemens and the others are all guilty of doping? Oh, I think Barry Bonds started a lawsuit againt the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who blew the led off of his insatiable need for "juicing" but dropped it? Gee, I wonder why?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:39 PM
human human is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3
Default Re: The Forgotten Carrots Edition

I am not suggesting that we dismantle all our nuclear weapons unilaterally, but until we make a real effort to begin the process I don't think we can ever hope to have a nuclear-free planet.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:42 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: "Lost Tens of Thousands of People"

I was surprised how little both Ann and Steve knew about Ron Paul's background.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:49 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
David_PA:

Not to worry. I did say it was obscure. For some reason, that movie really rang the cherries with me.
It was a great movie. One of my friends who's normally too much of a stiff, was effusive about it and saw it 4 times.

Quote:
I agree, they're not among my favorite BH.tvers, either. And I also agree that they're not geniuses, although I'd say they're fairly well-read in their field and always come prepared. Their blogosphere wrap-up thing is getting a little old, especially now that Conn isn't in the blog aggregation business anymore. But they're not brutally painful -- I'm always up for a little political gossip that I might have missed during my own trawling. They don't make me hostile. Sleepy, maybe, at worst.
I agree. You understand that I was compelled to find an example to try to at least poke a little hole in your prevalent reason for not liking Ann - 'that she's not substantive enough'.

Quote:
Steve was quite good in his debut with Bob, and I had hoped they'd bring him back a lot sooner than they did. Everyone wants to see him paired with Mickey, which Mickey flat-out vetoed for a while, although he did show a hint of relenting recently. I'd like to see him paired with pretty much any conservative (he and Bob share too many political opinions; the debut was fun because it was mostly gossip about Mickey).

Any conservative other than Ann, that is. As I noted in my opening salvo in this thread, I had been skipping her appearances for months and only watched because Steve was on. By now, my answer should be obvious, but for the record, on your trade offer: I'd regretfully miss Steve for the benefit of missing Ann.

Come to that, it's hard to think of what would get me ever to watch her again. Which I'm sure will come as a relief to a big chunk of the rest of the forum readers.
Ha. In the interest of playing my politics right as a relative newbie at BHtv, I'm not going to offer Ann any more support, and will leave that to someone who's seen her more ... if such a person exists and is brave enough to say so in a post ;-).

Getting Stephen to be more of regular is something that would be great. At this point, I don't care that much about the pairing except for wanting someone to draw him out a little more.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:55 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: The Forgotten Carrots Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by human View Post
I am not suggesting that we dismantle all our nuclear weapons unilaterally, but until we make a real effort to begin the process I don't think we can ever hope to have a nuclear-free planet.
Thanks to the republicans dogged insistence on missile defense research and deployment, the US soon be able to do exactly what you are asking for.

As I understand it, the thousands of nuclear weapons were intended to guarantee some weapons would survive a Soviet first strike and in turn destroy that country. Mutually assured destruction. With missile defense, which democrats oppose despite the facts which support the idea, the US can unilaterally reduce its nuke stockpile.

-Steve
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:00 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: An Complete Waste of Steve Kaus's Appearance

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
They are godless democrats. possibly possessed by satan. Contrary points of view sting them like holy water in an exorcism. What I cant figure out is how can democrats avoid facts so frequently ( the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a grave threat to the world today ), yet they all appear to reach the same political conclusions.

-Steve
Didn't you mean to capitalize the "g" in godless?

You're kidding, right? The neo-cons reasons for going into Iraq were fact-based?

Senator Biden had the facts right about Pakistan - over a month ago - long before any republican knew how to even spell it.

Democrats are more concerned about nuclear weapons than republicans are. No one on either side of the aisle has proposed a politically viable way to reduce nuclear proliferation. Do you know a way to make that happen?

Give us another example of a fact Democrats are avoiding. You're first one doesn't make any sense.

Last edited by David_PA; 12-30-2007 at 02:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:06 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
It's a lot more clear now what the problems are with AA, though I'd need to go back and review the 4 diavlogs that 'Incompetence Dodger' recommends to get a really clear picture.
You really don't need to watch four hours of video to catch up. The few short minutes when Ann suffered an on-camera mental collapse should suffice. What we know about Ann is that she has an extremely delicate mental condition; she's one breakdown shy of diapers and permanent retirement.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/202

Ann has two charming qualities: she's mean, and she's dishonest. Both are on display in this clip. And if this clip wasn't incredible enough, Ann then proceded to blame the episode on Garance!

If you're interested in more background on the events leading up to this, the entire fiasco was written up by Lindsay Beyerstein.

All in all, this was one of the more amusing events of the blogosphere in 2007.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 12-30-2007 at 02:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:32 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Major League Baseball Players Association: a union we all should loathe

bkjazfan:

Quote:
There has not been or probably will there probably never will be a defamation lawsuit brought by any athlete accused of doping. Now, why is this the case? It has been a part of Anglo law for hundreds of years.
Aren't defamation lawsuits really hard to win under the US legal system? It is my understanding that we're night to the UK's day in this area. I believe that one of the things you have to show as a plaintiff in a defamation suit is how you have been harmed. That all by itself is a pretty high bar to clear -- any athlete named has been making bank for years, even as rumors swirled.

I think you're right to speculate about another piece -- it seems obvious from a glance at the respective physiques that there really is some there there.

Final piece: despite the attendance figures and other indications cited by pundits in support of the idea that "the fans don't care," I don't think the players would have much of a chance on the PR front if they did start going to court to complain about these accusations. If I were making a seven- or eight-figure paycheck from salary and (more importantly) endorsements, I think I'd be inclined not to stir the pot, much like movie stars bite the bullet regarding the gossip rags.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:40 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A good one

David_PA:

Quote:
I agree. You understand that I was compelled to find an example to try to at least poke a little hole in your prevalent reason for not liking Ann - 'that she's not substantive enough'.
Yeah, no problem. Have no reluctance to dispute me whenever -- I have a relatively thick skin and try to maintain a willingness to be corrected. That said, I'll often argue back, just because I like to argue.

Your example was not without merit, is what'd I say about this specific instance. I think it pales in comparison on the vacuous scale, of course.

Quote:
In the interest of playing my politics right as a relative newbie at BHtv ...
Wait. What's this nonsense about waiting to become informed before expressing an opinion? That's no way to fit in!

But seriously, I appreciate that attitude, and I do love that this board is characterized by the overwhelming majority of commenters seeming to have some bases for their opinions.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:45 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
Hmm ... read the posts before watching the diavlog and almost didn't watch it, they were so negative. I was pleasantly surprised. This is clearly among the better diavlogs. The rapport was good, there was a good amount of depth, no grandstanding, no demagoguing, no polemics, no unfounded ranting - and we got a decent amount of insight. Furthermore, the tone was pleasant - insight without fireworks and skewering, a nice change of pace from the sometimes-too-frequent jousting and off-target riposting. Or, put another way, more light and less heat. But ... no addrennies if you were needing a fix.
I've never watched an Althouse diavlog I enjoyed, and have very little respect for the woman, owing to her dishonesty and viciousness. But I would have to agree with your assessment above. Ann was actually pleasant in this diavlog. If she was always like this, I would like her. As someone else said, Steve's reasonableness may have bled over onto Ann's half of the screen. Ann actually was polite and friendly for a change.

Part of Ann's problem is that she gets angry if you disagree with her. She readily admits she's not qualified to comment in depth on most of the issues normally discussed on BHTV. And, where most people can encounter disagreement without getting angry, Ann cannot. If you just hint that George Bush might be imperfect, for example, she flashes red hot. If you actually challenge one of Ann's ideas, she goes nuclear. It's pretty ugly.

After several embarrassing outbursts in a row, an effort was apparently made to pair Ann only with people who agree with her about everything. This is what started the incredibly boring era of her diavlogs with David Lat, Annie Gottlieb, and Robin Givhan. Those diavlogs are all highly recommended as treatments for chronic insomnia. Or if you are considering suicide, but wavering, not really sure if you want to pull the trigger; put one of those on it will settle the question and you will soon be happily on your way to the next life.

Brendan is right when he points out that Ann rarely talks about anything of substance. What would be interesting would be an Althouse-Brooks diavlog about the legal issues surrounding the Bush administration.

But I don't think Ann would ever agree to that, and I have no idea why. She's obviously qualified, and she appears to be a major supporter of the extremist legal agenda of the Bush administration. But it's a subject she studiously avoids on her blog and BHTV.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-30-2007, 02:47 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
But since you asked, here's a short summary of my complaints.

Basically, I think she's vacuous -- she's has never come close to making me think. She's supposed to be a law professor, but has yet to say anything that I've heard to make me believe it. (Note, for example, her self-promotion of her latest submission to Legal Times. Somewhere, Harriet Miers is weeping.)

Okay, she doesn't want to talk about her day job. Fine. As I see it, the rest of her schtick consists of saying she's interested in feminism and pop culture, while failing to offer any in-depth awareness of either of these subjects. She's a feminist the way some of my relatives are Irish -- they only bring the Erin Go Bragh when they want an excuse to take offense. And as for pop culture: as I said above, her awareness of the world seems to stem solely from glancing at the NY Times. I'd add another source: an obvious obsession about feeling frumpy around her students, which manifests as shrill and incessant complaints about about pop culture, invariably beginning with "I just don't understand ..."

And then there's her on-camera personality. She's loud. She interrupts too often. She's long-winded, and worse, meandering. Her sense of humor begins and ends with the sort of double entendres that most of us found tiresome by the end of junior high. She smirks. She talks about blogging way too much, as though she's the only one in the world who does this. She has a giant ego, a vicious streak, and a very thin skin -- she's eager to say catty things about people she doesn't like or agree with, but has a tantrum whenever it comes back at her.
Brendan,
That was an absolutely first-rate description of Ann. Nicely done.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:14 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A good one

Twin:

Quote:
hat was an absolutely first-rate description of Ann. Nicely done.
Thanks. I also enjoyed yours, especially the part about the sporific and suicide-provoking pairings with The Other Anne, et al. Glad I missed 'em.

I think the all-time most nauseating AA appearance, however, was the time she was on with Instapundit and Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser. That was back before the boycott, but pushed me heavily toward that eventual outcome. As I remember it, it was an hour-long support group meeting whose mutual reaffirmations spanned from "we're not conservatives" to "liberals are mean to us."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:29 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
I've never watched an Althouse diavlog I enjoyed, and have very little respect for the woman, owing to her dishonesty and viciousness. But I would have to agree with your assessment above. Ann was actually pleasant in this diavlog. If she was always like this, I would like her. As someone else said, Steve's reasonableness may have bled over onto Ann's half of the screen. Ann actually was polite and friendly for a change.
Thanks - this version of my original post has several edits making it a fair amount different from the version to which Brendan originally responded. Steve definitely has reasonableness to spare.


Quote:
Brendan is right when he points out that Ann rarely talks about anything of substance. What would be interesting would be an Althouse-Brooks diavlog about the legal issues surrounding the Bush administration.

But I don't think Ann would ever agree to that, and I have no idea why. She's obviously qualified, and she appears to be a major supporter of the extremist legal agenda of the Bush administration. But it's a subject she studiously avoids on her blog and BHTV.
I'd definitely want to see that. Ann: How 'bout it?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:02 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default What's Wrong with Ann?

I do not understand why so much vituperation is directed at Ann Althouse. I think there is some astonishment and bitterness that a youngish blonde (and a LAW professor to boot, training OUR young!) is NOT a doctrinaire liberal. I will not claim her as a conservative, because she is not doctrinaire about anything. I would probably classify her as a sensible or realistic libertarian (as opposed to the loony Dr. Paul, who apparently thinks America should be a Switzerland with nukes). How would you compare her to Mr. Scher, who just repeats whatever he has read on Lefty blogs? Her insights are good -- for example the phallic signifigance of the carrots in the Clinton "Sopranos" commercial was obvious, if denied by Lefty bloggers -- and she is very good at decoding messages that are being sent to us by the candidates, which are not restricted to health care plans, and the culture. The Clintons are experts at sending such messages "under the radar." You seem to denigrate her because she does not parade her erudition. She tries to seem norrnal and down to earth, qualities that are not valued here in at Bloggingheads.tv. I think she is very self-confident. She does not need to PROVE how smart she is. Where she is speaks for itself. I wish that I had known a professor like her at law school. Try to be more polite about her in your comments. I enjoy her blog very much.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:13 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: What's Wrong with Ann?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcnulty View Post
I do not understand
Well said, McNulty. The first step is to admit you have a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:17 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: What's Wrong with Ann?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcnulty View Post
I do not understand why so much vituperation is directed at Ann Althouse. I think there is some astonishment and bitterness that a youngish blonde (and a LAW professor to boot, training OUR young!) is NOT a doctrinaire liberal. I will not claim her as a conservative, because she is not doctrinaire about anything. I would probably classify her as a sensible or realistic libertarian (as opposed to the loony Dr. Paul, who apparently thinks America should be a Switzerland with nukes). How would you compare her to Mr. Scher, who just repeats whatever he has read on Lefty blogs? Her insights are good -- for example the phallic signifigance of the carrots in the Clinton "Sopranos" commercial was obvious, if denied by Lefty bloggers -- and she is very good at decoding messages that are being sent to us by the candidates, which are not restricted to health care plans, and the culture. The Clintons are experts at sending such messages "under the radar." You seem to denigrate her because she does not parade her erudition. She tries to seem norrnal and down to earth, qualities that are not valued here in at Bloggingheads.tv. I think she is very self-confident. She does not need to PROVE how smart she is. Where she is speaks for itself. I wish that I had known a professor like her at law school. Try to be more polite about her in your comments. I enjoy her blog very much.
But seriously....

You make some semi-decent points. Ann isn't the embodiment of evil, or anything. She's dishonest, and she's mean. But I read her blog regularly and she occasionally posts something interesting and worthwhile. She's a great photographer, and can seem like a nice person when she's not lying or attacking other people.

Of course you are correct that much of the opposition to her is fueled by her support for Bush and her mostly silent endorsement of his radical legal agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:21 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I think the all-time most nauseating AA appearance, however, was the time she was on with Instapundit and Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser. ... As I remember it, it was an hour-long support group meeting whose mutual reaffirmations spanned from "we're not conservatives" to "liberals are mean to us."
Good lord. Once again, that's the perfect description.

One of the things I find most amusing about Ann and the Perfessers is their insistence that they aren't conservative. Sure, they aren't Huckabee or anything, but you can't be enthusiastic supporters of the most extreme right wing administration since the 19th century and NOT be a conservative.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:22 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: An Complete Waste of Steve Kaus's Appearance

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
Didn't you mean to capitalize the "g" in godless?
Once I start capitalizing I am not clear on when to stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
You're kidding, right? The neo-cons reasons for going into Iraq were fact-based?
The facts are clear that Iraq no longer has a nuclear weapons program and Iran has discontinued its. Without the removal of Saddam and the Baathists that would not be the case. The world is much safer because of George Bush and the large number of Red State volunteers to the US military.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
Senator Biden had the facts right about Pakistan - over a month ago - long before any republican knew how to even spell it.
and what facts would those be? Do democrats actually listen to what pompous US senators have to say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
Democrats are more concerned about nuclear weapons than republicans are. No one on either side of the aisle has proposed a politically viable way to reduce nuclear proliferation. Do you know a way to make that happen?
it is hard to say. each situation is different. But, definitely take advantage of opportunities like the invasion of Iraq to remove a major proponent of nukes from the playing field. Targeted assassinations of those with nuclear know how should be considered.

-Steve
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:38 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: What's Wrong with Ann?

jm:

You've got some nerve using this adjective:

Quote:
... the loony Dr. Paul ...
when one sentence later you say this:

Quote:
... she is very good at decoding messages that are being sent to us by the candidates ... The Clintons are experts at sending such messages "under the radar."
All I can say is that I hope you're keeping up with the latest research.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:56 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Re: What's Wrong with Ann?

Response to Bjkeefe:

I keep up with the research on protective headgear, but I spend most of my time trying to insure the purity of my "precious bodily fluids." Oddly enough, while 30 years ago the Right was lampooned with being anti-flouride, today it is the Left making noise about potential health risk of injesting floruide.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:06 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: What's Wrong with Ann?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcnulty View Post
Response to Bjkeefe:

I keep up with the research on protective headgear, but I spend most of my time trying to insure the purity of my "precious bodily fluids." Oddly enough, while 30 years ago the Right was lampooned with being anti-flouride, today it is the Left making noise about potential health risk of injesting floruide.
Yeah. I wouldn't expect you to be aware of it, McNulty, but there is a difference between concern about potentially adverse health effects of fluoride, and lunatic fantasies about fluoridation as a communist conspiracy to take over America.

It tells us a lot about you that you don't see a significant difference between the two.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:29 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: An Complete Waste of Steve Kaus's Appearance

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
The facts are clear that Iraq no longer has a nuclear weapons program and Iran has discontinued its. Without the removal of Saddam and the Baathists that would not be the case. The world is much safer because of George Bush and the large number of Red State volunteers to the US military.
Iraq never had much of nuclear weapons program. The world is actually less safe because of Iraq, the debacle of which was a major recruiting tool for Al-Qaeada.

Quote:
and what facts would those be? Do democrats actually listen to what pompous US senators have to say?
Biden is (was) correct that Pakistan is the area in which we ought to be concentrating our anti-terror efforts. Not Iran. (Though perhaps Iran will become a real threat again.)


Quote:
it is hard to say. each situation is different. But, definitely take advantage of opportunities like the invasion of Iraq to remove a major proponent of nukes from the playing field. Targeted assassinations of those with nuclear know how should be considered.
-Steve
The invasion is what was the problem. A containment approach with Iraq would have been much more wise and our military wouldn't be bogged down. It could have been used judiciously in Pakistan with much great anti-terror effects.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:55 PM
jmcnulty jmcnulty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 144
Default Response to David_PA:

Did you really say the following about the U. S. military: "It could have been used judiciously in Pakistan with much greater anti-terror effects."

Is this similar to the Obama "invade Pakistan" statement? So if I understand this right, we are supposed to leave Iraq -- where we are winning -- to invade Pakistan, a country that has atomic bombs and the missiles to deliver them, in order to enjoy "much greater anti-terror effects."

And what is the government of Pakistan supposed to be doing while we are invading the hinterlands, or are you proposing that we garrison Islamabad too?

You don't think that the Arab or Muslim world would see this as even more imperialistic action by American than the attack on Iraq, a country that we thought was poised to develop nuclear weapons and with whom we had been exchanging shots for years? Isn't Pakistan even a larger and more populous country than Iraq? Maybe we should ask the Indians to help us invade; I am sure that they would be willing.

If you think Iraq was a mad war of "choice," then what would you say about a war on Pakistan, a country that claims to be our friend? What would the Pakistani's think of Musharraf then? Would be still be a candidate?

Obama's comment made Hillary look like Pericles. It is best to ignore it and chalk it up to inexperience, with the assumption that he is a smart guy and would not actually do it if in office. Huckabee said something about Pakistan that was a foolish, but I am not sure that he is a smart guy -- he is a nice guy though. Still, I would not want him in the Oval Office calling the shots if he thinks Afghanistan is to the east of Pakistan. Bad advice? Hell, doesn't he have a map?

Last edited by jmcnulty; 12-30-2007 at 05:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:29 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: An Complete Waste of Steve Kaus's Appearance

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
Iraq never had much of nuclear weapons program.
so what did Israel bomb in 1981? sand? Iraq was being closely watched and threatened by the US military. There was no way the sanctions against Iraq could have continued much longer back in 2002.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
The world is actually less safe because of Iraq, the debacle of which was a major recruiting tool for Al-Qaeada.
I dont see the evidence for that. Sure seems like there have been fewer terror attacks against western targets in the last few years than prior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
Biden is (was) correct that Pakistan is the area in which we ought to be concentrating our anti-terror efforts. Not Iran. (Though perhaps Iran will become a real threat again.)
I still dont know what that means. "... We ( meaning the red state american military ) ought to concentrate anti terror efforts on Pakistan. ..." Targeted assassination? Capture and torture? or just endless meddling and pontificating by US Senators?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_PA View Post
The invasion is what was the problem. A containment approach with Iraq would have been much more wise and our military wouldn't be bogged down.
why contain the country when you said they never had a nuke program?

Iran had a nuke program. For that reason alone Saddam would have started one of his own. The problem with containment is it could not be sustained politically for much longer than 2002. How do you get the UN to go along with continued containment when Iran is not subject to containment?

Better to invade Iraq and then apply international pressure on Iran to discontinue the nuke program it had no justification for.

-Steve
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-30-2007, 09:26 PM
David_PA David_PA is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 105
Default Re: An Complete Waste of Steve Kaus's Appearance

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
There was no way the sanctions against Iraq could have continued much longer back in 2002.
Really? Why is that?
Quote:
I dont see the evidence for that. Sure seems like there have been fewer terror attacks against western targets in the last few years than prior.
Feeling good about Al Qaeda's weakness in Pakistan, are you?
Quote:
I still dont know what that means. "... We ( meaning the red state american military ) ought to concentrate anti terror efforts on Pakistan. ..." Targeted assassination? Capture and torture? or just endless meddling and pontificating by US Senators?
How about using our powerful military to concentrate on Al Qaeda where it is strongest - in and around Pakistan?

Quote:
why contain the country when you said they never had a nuke program?
... because it could have obtained one. But, it didn't have one in 2002 because containment and sanctions were working.

Quote:
The problem with containment is it could not be sustained politically for much longer than 2002. How do you get the UN to go along with continued containment when Iran is not subject to containment?
You are comparing the UN stance in 2002 with it's stance today. In 2002, the UN was all for continuing sanctions against Iraq - even stronger ones. Iraq, as we found out after we invaded, had been crippled by the sanctions.

The reason the UN won't go along with sanctions against Iran now is because of the most recent NIE report. The good thing about that report is that the US isn't about to attack Iran any longer. The unfortunate thing about the NIE report is that we need to keep a close eye on Iran and sanctions against Iran will be needed if they aren't already - and both of these things are now harder to do.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:12 PM
Incompetence Dodger Incompetence Dodger is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 45
Default Re: A good one

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post

I think the all-time most nauseating AA appearance, however, was the time she was on with Instapundit and Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser. That was back before the boycott, but pushed me heavily toward that eventual outcome. As I remember it, it was an hour-long support group meeting whose mutual reaffirmations spanned from "we're not conservatives" to "liberals are mean to us."
That one was going to be no. 5 on my list, but I'm sure that my political and regional biases against Reynolds and Dr. Helen are part of the reason I loathe that diavlog so deeply, so I left it out as I didn't want to muddy the waters. I wanted to keep the focus of my criticism squarely on Ann. BTW, I'm not saying I'm proud of my biases or anything (particularly the visceral reaction I had to Dr. Helen's accent), but I have to acknowledge that they exist. None of which is to say that the Ann-Instapundit diavlog was anything less than a soul-crushing, eye-gouging experience.

On a somewhat related topic, someone (Brendan I think) denied that sexism plays any part in the vitriol with which Ann gets criticized. Oh come on. I think it's almost self-evident that sexism is at the root of the type and intensity of attack that female bloggers have to put up with. It's not just Ann--Megan and Garance, for example, come to mind as being attacked regularly in a way that is steeped in sexism. Which is really too bad, as all three have written things that richly deserve criticism, even outright ridicule.Which is too bad, becuase such discussions then get sidetracked onto topics like sexism, feminism, female bloggers etc. and off the original criticism, which as I said is often richly deserved. Better, I think, to acknowledge that the sexism exists but also to note that it doesn't invalidate the criticism.
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 04:15 PM.


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