Wow, they both complete miss the mark on why the commenters hate them. Even to the point as they attempt to drive through the message why, Ann, especially drives me crazy. Often times, Ann is completely lacking intellectual honesty. During the last diavlog, in particular, with Bob was her completely void of follow through.

I feel it's important to point out that the reason liberal bloggers are making a big deal about McCain's houses is because conservative pundits (like Jonah Goldberg) keep calling Obama an elitist. Well the elitism that matters most is economic elitism, and McCain is a ludicrously wealthy guy. The degree to which the wealth of a presidential candidate is relevant is debatable. But when conservatives keep bringing up ideas like elitist or out of touch, McCain's wealth becomes relevant.

Quoting Freddie: I feel it's important to point out that the reason liberal bloggers are making a big deal about McCain's houses is because conservative pundits (like Jonah Goldberg) keep calling Obama an elitist. Well the elitism that matters most is economic elitism, and McCain is a ludicrously wealthy guy. The degree to which the wealth of a presidential candidate is relevant is debatable. But when conservatives keep bringing up ideas like elitist or out of touch, McCain's wealth becomes relevant.

Yep. Plus, the media isn't going to cover their policy differences: Iraq, health care, energy. So houses it is.

For those interested, our url is firemeganmcardle.blogspot.com .

Or, rather, what's the beef? I found this a sometimes meandering, but sometimes astute and interesting exchange. It's no special knock that in places it meandered; nearly all of these exchanges do. These are two very smart and engaging ladies, a match easily for most of the people who here appear. They were especially good on the part about religion and politics and Mcardle was tough minded and astute in her comments on why she attracts hyper-ventilating critics. Althouse liked her analysis and chimed in to enrich it and broaden it some. The issue of religion and politics is broad and complex and I think the discussion was illuminating and cogent even though I disagreed with a lot of what was said. My disagreements are three fold from what I can remember of what was discussed: 1. I didn't like the premise of Saddleback and found Rick Warren asking a lot of Oprah like soft ball questions, forcing a nod to religion, and implicitly, as Chris Matthews has argued, setting a religious test for holding public office with the consequent religious pandering that comes from that. Ms Althouse isn't the first to have commented

Quoting claymisher: Yep. Plus, the media isn't going to cover their policy differences: Iraq, health care, energy. So houses it is.

lol this is how mindless partisans think OUR SIDE, OUR SIDE, OUR SIDE MUST WIN

Quoting Username: lol this is how mindless partisans think

OUR SIDE, OUR SIDE, OUR SIDE MUST WIN

Beats losing.

Although I'm pleased to see Ms. Althouse sounding so sober and reflective, it does make it harder to come up with truly embarrassing dingalinks for her (such as my "Althousian Darwinism" which spilled out when she was chugging glasses of wine during the DV). She's redeemed herself intellectually (more or less). Much less entertaining however. Oh well. EW

Wow, they both complete miss the mark on why the commenters hate them.

Hate? Real hate? Too funny. Ann and Megan, people who muster hate over opposing political views here are the same people who saturate these boards in absolutes such as

......Ann is completely lacking intellectual honesty.

and try to create the false impression of consensus. Hate is the sort of thing that drives the small percentage of posters here who try to get Mickey Kaus and/or Jonah Goldberg banned. Whether it's yourselves or Michelle Malkin (I don't think she's ever commented here but she was mentioned), Rosa Brooks, Ana Marie Cox etc.....most thinking humans can separate political views from the rest of the persona enough to understand that most if not all of the bloggers here are decent enough folks with all sorts of interests and backgrounds who don't necessarily eat babies or club seals in their recreation time. Just because most of these people aren't the same ones flooding these boards with charges of racism, stupidity, dishonesty etc doesn't mean that hate is a prevailing emotion here.

Now that I've gotten to the end of this one, I'll confess I've had points of profound disagreement with both of these guests at times. (Megan's incredibly impractical and empathy-bereft libertarian chatter is sometimes uniquely difficult to take seriously.) Also, I've found AA's defensiveness when posting in the Comments Gallery a bit goofy and not befitting her intelligence at least as displayed on her better days. But "hate"?!? Too strong a word by far. I usually find both Megan's and Ann's ideation sufficiently stimulating to make the listening worth the occasional allergic reaction. Why, I even agree with them, what, maybe half the time? Decent DV. Thanks to both. (Oh, btw, I'm not sitting around in my underwear. I'm copyediting or cooking or doing dishes usually, all tasks the boredom with which is alleviated somewhat through BHTV audio [and sometimes visual] entertainment.) EW

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/139...5:55&out=36:10 I don't know that I would go quite that far, but I don't have a problem with making people feel silly for putting religious beliefs ahead of scientific facts. Ann's idea of comforting people about their beliefs is absurd. Like Megan points out - is it a specific religion's beliefs that will be treated with kid gloves in a biology class? (The answer is basically "yes". It is believers in the Holy Bible who interpret their texts literally). This is wholly unacceptable. Also, Ann's notion that we are putting these poor people through tortuous loops by asking them to argue from reason and rationality is not only silly, but a bit elitist. You mean people can't be taught to reason? And, if not, then I suppose they get left behind. I'm sorry, but for our society to advance, we have to expect the use of reason and rationality in public discourse. If you can't do it, then you might as well stay out of our way.

Unlike Megan, I'm not ok with parents pulling their kids out of biology class. A stronger knowledge of biology would behoove the general public, and bio class in high school is where they will get it. Incidentally it's also where future scientists come from. For that reason, it does matter how Megan's friends feel about evolution, because it will influence whether their children go to biology class. It would be better still if those friends could master the evidence and scientific reasoning that support evolution. Unfortunately, evolution is a singularly bad subject to teach the scientific method because most experiments are ridiculously long. Many non-long experiments, like Tracking the evolution of multidrug resistance in Staphylococcus aureus are both grizzly and the rhetorical equivalent of threatening non-believers with eternal damnation. This means that saying we should teach the controversy is, in fact, punting.

Meghan/Ann: for determining why you get such negative treatment from commenters, wouldn't it have been more useful to start with some of the specific complaints that had been historically lodged against you, and then maybe having you counter their charges? On this site, at least, I can say that I've seen some very lucid explanations of why your detractors feel the way they do. And while they are not always as considerate in tone as they should be, there usually is a fair and logical reasoning behind why they diss you and not say Rosa Brooks, Heather Hurlburt or Eli Lake.

That's a thought: have Michelle Malkin appear. I like Megan not because she is right or wrong on this or that since I'm not that astute to judge such things. She is pleasant most of the time and nice looking. Ann does get edgy but is sassy and aggressive which is an attraction, too. Keep em. John

Megan doesn´t seem to get it - Clinton supporters are offended by the emotional blackmail (no pun intended) with regard to Hillary Clinton on the part of Obama supporters. However, if Senador Obama loses, the blame game will focus more on Obama netroots than on Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. The dissing of Hillaryland by this group just might lead then to a purge. All too sad given the policy objectives are shared by most. Megan is a good example of this too-clever-by half crowd. At any rate, Ann you are great to watch!

I love listening to Ann, because she tries to be funny and controversial. I find it interesting that Ann subtly questioned whether the D.C. bloggers clique is sufficiently in tune with the rest of America. I share this concern somewhat, given that these people have a pretty significant impact on policy debate in media and government. On the other hand, there are great benefits to a milieu full of stimulating conversation and idea-sharing...and hopefully their comment sections stay substantive and critical, so they can't sink too deeply into a blogger echo chamber.

Meh. I listened to the "why do they hate us" section b/c I do think folks here are too hard on Ann (and Mickey) and even though I think almost everything is about gender/sex I don't think this one's about gender/sex . . . I personally like about half of the male bloggers and half of the female bloggers on here.

Yeah, their gender hardly seems to be an issue in most of the critiques that I have read pointed at Meghan and Ann.

Speaking as one who frequently finds both of you insufferable, since you ask, my perception of the two of you is encapsulated in the word SMUG.
Think self-righteous sorority sister. or living in a bubble of comfort by virtue of entitlement: or simply self-congratulation. Or a limited grasp of reality beyond the words. A severe lack of insight, blindered.
By contrast Ann surprised me by reaching imaginatively towards the minds of people to whom religious faith is central. At that point my perception of her reversed. She even seemed to grow more grounded then; she moved beyond the girlishness, or perhaps girliness. Megan even responded with a hint of thoughtfulness; though not dropping the high school persona. I offer tentative congratulations, contingent upon further searching beyond the shallows. Ann has proven she can; for myself I have doubts about Megan. Lest you imagine otherwise: I like and admire any blogginghead in direct proportion to the absence of smugness and shallowness.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Yeah, their gender hardly seems to be an issue in most of the critiques that I have read pointed at Meghan and Ann.

It's always expected that we, women, will pull out the "gender card". It's like the cross that men may have to bear for a while, until true equality is reached. Women will sometimes overdo it, and at other times their claims may be completely justified. It is an adjustment period for all the involved. I watched the entire diavlog, and as a woman, I wasn't impressed by these two. I found some of their statements quite outrageous. In the last section, when they talk about the criticism they receive, the obvious emerges. If someone decides to make his/her opinion public, they have to accept the rules of the game. Criticism is to be expected. Some of it may be disproportionate and ridiculous like the example of Megan's recipe, but some of it, will be more than worth listening to. They talk about someone making fun of a child who died or something like that, and they put that together with their criticism of their critics. I find this painful to say, and I wish I could be more supportive to

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Meghan/Ann: for determining why you get such negative treatment from commenters, wouldn't it have been more useful to start with some of the specific complaints that had been historically lodged against you, and then maybe having you counter their charges?

On this site, at least, I can say that I've seen some very lucid explanations of why your detractors feel the way they do. And while they are not always as considerate in tone as they should be, there usually is a fair and logical reasoning behind why they diss you and not say Rosa Brooks, Heather Hurlburt or Eli Lake.

Well said, uncle eb. The thing that is most annoying about Ann and Megan, both in this diavlog and elsewhere, is that they have a strong tendency to lump all criticism of their writing and speaking in with the few who comment on, say, Megan's recipe or Ann's drinking. I'm not saying there aren't trolls, and I'm not saying there aren't people who have come to dislike both of them so much that they now come off as unhinged, but it's a mistake to think that there is no

Sadly, I have to say, that I completely agree... Brendan, could you stop thinking my thoughts? Can I accuse you of plagiarism?

Quoting Ocean: Ann, is more "astute", a professional manipulator. She seemed to wait, with a fake smile on her face, until the exact time when she could steer the conversation where she wanted it to go. She used quite a number of strategies of deception. She bent and twisted arguments to her convenience. There were so many instances that it would be difficult to enumerate and well beyond my motivation for detailed analysis.

I was quite taken aback when Megan mentioned the time when her grandfather died, and Ann made her smile grow even wider. Not a shred of empathy. It seemed like it wasn't useful material and therefore, it didn't deserve her attention. I think her smile was "accidental", I wouldn't want to go as far as accusing her of sadism.

That's similar to the sense that I have of Ann -- she never comes across as anything but mean-spirited and petty. Even her smile makes you think of someone who likes pulling the legs off of bugs.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's similar to the sense that I have of Ann -- she never comes across as anything but mean-spirited and petty. Even her smile makes you think of someone who likes pulling the legs off of bugs.

Well, I interpret that as the smile of a professor who's used to politely listening to students make excruciatingly dumb comments in class, and I think we're just not that used to seeing people on camera listening to other people talk . . . i always have to avert my eyes from john horgan's gaze of wonderment, for example : )

The thing that's so shameful about criticism of Megan and Ann is that both of these women were prisoners of war....oh...nevermind. I didn't watch this because the subjects didn't interest me and I need at least one person in a diavlog whose perspective I find at least minimally compelling, but I happen to not hate Megan (although I don't take libertarians very seriously) and find her likeable enough as a person - charmingly earnest even - but Althouse is considered totally creepy by myself and others for reasons that are substantive and have been nailed in these comments threads numerous times. Her dishonesty tops the list. She reminds me of Mark Halperin - an obvious shill who cross-dresses as some kind of objective commentator.

There's another thing they overlook, too. Both of them present as excessively self-centered and self-absorbed.

Ann is way worse. At least Megan has the excuse of being young and insecure (i.e., defensive). She's intelligent and interesting, so I give her a pass on being a bit obnoxious. Ann comes across as a narcissistic bully.

Quoting brucds: The thing that's so shameful about criticism of Megan and Ann is that both of these women were prisoners of war....oh...nevermind.

I didn't watch this because the subjects didn't interest me and I need at least one person in a diavlog whose perspective I find at least minimally compelling, but I happen to not hate Megan (although I don't take libertarians very seriously) and find her likeable enough as a person - charmingly earnest even - but Althouse is considered totally creepy by myself and others for reasons that are substantive and have been nailed in these comments threads numerous times. Her dishonesty tops the list. She reminds me of Mark Halperin - an obvious shill who cross-dresses as some kind of objective commentator.

What do you think she's a shill for? I'm far left politically but if anything she just seems like a shill for art school . . . at worst a Camille Paglia wannabe, but I actually think Ann's much less bombastic : )

Quoting bjkeefe: That's similar to the sense that I have of Ann -- she never comes across as anything but mean-spirited and petty. Even her smile makes you think of someone who likes pulling the legs off of bugs.

Wow. And here I thought I was the hardest person to please among all the commenters on the BHTV site. With this, BJ and Ocean especially make me seem utterly minor league. I didn't even score a bronze for gratuitous ad hominem criticism. (Must be losing my touch.) Now, with all due respect, I think when one starts talking in terms of these verging-on-evil personal faults, one makes the mistake of imputing enduringly flawed qualities onto what is actually an ever-changing stream of electrons, protons, and neutrons, in short, onto a never-static non-entity. (That's "non-entity" in the non-pejorative, metaphysical sense. This also spares me being accused of coming to their defense, since, in real terms, neither of them exists, anyway.) Hey, all of these DV guests are sort of like going down to the beach to swim: Some days the water is clear and beautiful and you can see the tiniest details deep down in the water, whilst other days, it's all murky and overgrown with gross-out algae. That's part of

Quoting Wonderment: At least Megan has the excuse of being young and insecure (i.e., defensive). She's intelligent and interesting, so I give her a pass on being a bit obnoxious.

A bit obnoxious, not much. But very shallow. Ann's more prominent feature is manipulation. She uses a lot of facial expression and cadence to lead the conversation, very subtly, surreptitious...

Quoting del: . . . at worst a Camille Paglia wannabe ...

Man, I'm not sure I could come up with something more harsh to say about anybody.

Quoting del: Well, I interpret that as the smile of a professor who's used to politely listening to students make excruciatingly dumb comments in class, and I think we're just not that used to seeing people on camera listening to other people talk . . . i always have to avert my eyes from john horgan's gaze of wonderment, for example : )

There may be something to that, but I'd ask, first, doesn't she have another smile? And second, if she does, does the one she shows on BH.tv mean that she invariably thinks her diavlog partner is nothing more than one of her D students?

Quoting Eastwest: Now, with all due respect, I think when one starts talking in terms of these verging-on-evil personal faults, one makes the mistake of imputing enduringly flawed qualities ...

Possibly. Certainly one gets to a tipping point with people where enough badness has been perceived that it becomes much more likely that only badness will be perceived from then on. However, it's worth keeping in mind that we're not talking about reactions from a limited set of observations here. You flip a coin enough times and it keeps coming up tails, you begin to say, yeah, could just be a fluke, but the more likely explanation is, there's something wrong with the coin.

can we have a moratorium on the word "meme"?! or at most have a rule only one meme per dv? much like bob wright's astute critique of brooks's "fastest paradigm in the west", i feel like these two are particularly guilty of overprescribing to various "memes"--a word i'm entirely sick of. it is true, though, i am in my underwear.

Quoting Wonderment: Ann is way worse. At least Megan has the excuse of being young and insecure (i.e., defensive).

If Wikipedia is to be believed, she's passed the halfway point on her allotted three-score-and-ten. So, how much longer does this apply? And put another way, do you think she'd accept being told she shouldn't blog or diavlog, because she's too young to have grown-up thoughts?

I don't really mean it to be insulting . . . obnoxious sure, but not insulting : ) I think Paglia's brilliant and, what the hell, it's late, I'll say the same about Ann! Instead of pairing her with Megan, Garance, Jerilynn, etc. (none of whom strikes me a having much "firepower," to use Megan's term) it'd be interesting to pair her with Josh Cohen or one of the other "staid smarties" on here . . . I think she'd acquit herself really well . . . and, um, you do know she went to art school, right? : )

Quoting del: I don't really mean it to be insulting . . . obnoxious sure, but not insulting : )

I think Paglia's brilliant and, what the hell, it's late, I'll say the same about Ann!

I was mostly responding in jest, although it is true that you and I have very different views of Paglia. Ditto Ann.

Ann revealed a lot when she described her blog as an art project. She shouldn't be considered a serious political commentator--she's much more of a (wannabe) provocateur, riffing on whatever is in the news. What I find annoying about her is she writes/says things just to get a rise out of people. Someone like Dan Drezner will say that he's playing devil's advocate or taking the opposite position in order to flesh out an argument, while Ann just seems to like being provocative or argumentative. See this clip for example, where she says that "Obama is boring in the way he speaks"--I mean, what? Like him or not, he's clearly a good orator, but Ann takes the opposite position just to be disagreeable. She seems to revel in saying the things others won't, but usually there's a reason no one else says them... If you ever read the comments on her blog you see that most of them are in the same riffing vein, so clearly she has a like-minded following.

Quoting Jyminee: Ann revealed a lot when she described her blog as an art project. She shouldn't be considered a serious political commentator--she's much more of a (wannabe) provocateur, riffing on whatever is in the news.

What I find annoying about her is she writes/says things just to get a rise out of people. Someone like Dan Drezner will say that he's playing devil's advocate or taking the opposite position in order to flesh out an argument, while Ann just seems to like being provocative or argumentative. See this clip for example, where she says that "Obama is boring in the way he speaks"--I mean, what? Like him or not, he's clearly a good orator, but Ann takes the opposite position just to be disagreeable. She seems to revel in saying the things others won't, but usually there's a reason no one else says them...

If you ever read the comments on her blog you see that most of them are in the same riffing vein, so clearly she has a like-minded following.

Well, Megan could have asked her about it and I would have liked to hear her defend it as more

'What do you think she's a shill for?' She's a shill for GOP who doesn't have the stones to admit her partisanship. Her comments on Saddleback were blatantly dishonest.

Quoting del: (I guess as a Gen X'er there's nothing more boring than people trying to inspire me with their leadership . . . ).

Says a lot about the leaders, or "leaders," you've been exposed to, doesn't it?

Quoting del: (I guess as a Gen X'er there's nothing more boring than people trying to inspire me with their leadership . . . ).

If that's true, here's one you'll love (a cut-and-paste from my Post #90 on the "McCain on the March" thread): ****
Anyway, it's a five-minute Real Audio segment from 37:45 to 42:30 (just move the slider forward) of "Rethinking the Sixties," this part by a moltenly-enraged Charles Monroe Kane: http://broadcast.uwex.edu:8080/ramge.../bok080824a.rm)
**** EW

Quoting pink maggie: Can we have a moratorium on the word "meme"?!

"Moratorium"? If I weren't Buddhist, I'd advocate capital punishment for ever using it even once! EW

The title (I read it as: THE DIAVLOG!!!) deceived me. I was all set for some low down drag out female mud wrestling. Imagine my disappointment when, upon reaching the end, I discovered that I had just listened to a pretty reasonable diavlog.

Quoting pink maggie: can we have a moratorium on the word "meme"?! or at most have a rule only one meme per dv? much like bob wright's astute critique of brooks's "fastest paradigm in the west", i feel like these two are particularly guilty of overprescribing to various "memes"--a word i'm entirely sick of.

it is true, though, i am in my underwear.

As much as I find the concept of meme particularly helpful, found myself getting sicker each time it was used in this diavlog. I would have to go back to listen (I have no intention to) to each of the instances it's used. I suspect it's being overgeneralized to include all kinds of definitions that could be equally expressed with other terms. What happened to cliche, stereotype,myth, or even prejudice? Are we substituting all those with the m-word?
I'd rather reserve it for when there is no substitution. It keeps it strong and meaningful. In terms of the underwear, shhhh..., you can't say those things here. There's too many men around...

Great conversation. Two of my favorite people! Pair them up again. Suggested topic for next discussion "Why Ann and Megan drive the commentors crazy ... with desire!"

Quoting ohcomeon: What can one say?

Doesn't one say, hooray, more women 'vloggers? Or, alright, time to restart the counter? Maybe, yipee, more diverse voices and points of view in the BH conversation? Or has one dropped that altogether?

Quoting Exeus99: Doesn't one say, hooray, more women 'vloggers? Or, alright, time to restart the counter? Maybe, yipee, more diverse voices and points of view in the BH conversation?

Or has one dropped that altogether?

Wasn't the case already made the last time you said something like this that having Althouse and McArdle on nine times a month is not really doing much to achieve gender balance, let alone diversity?

Quoting Eastwest: I prefer to think of them as "works in progress," always trying to default to the "Well-maybe-they-won't-be-so-clueless-next-life" analysis.

EW. If we were working on their right to ascension we may consider the above. But I think that's not the task at hand. Here are my thoughts. It's difficult to watch these two women talking and not comment on their personal style of interaction. If you think about it, the diavlog is so filled with reflections about themselves and their lives, that it becomes the main thread of the conversation. It's all about how they feelabout a topic, how they are viewed by others, how they react to this or that. They bring their subjectivity to the forefront, for us to look at and examine. It's not our choice but theirs. When someone chooses that style, they make themselves subject to the analysis and criticism by others. We are not to be blamed, we are just playing the same game. What about their criticism of the commenters? Aren't they making all sorts of attributions? In this aspect, Ann was critical, but had a little more restraint in her comments. Megan was openly making fun of her audience. How wise is

Quoting Ocean: n terms of the underwear, shhhh..., you can't say those things here. There's too many men around...

I think I speak for the entire blogosphere, male, female, gay, straight, other, in saying that no one has a problem with visualizing women blogging in their underwear. A couple of exceptions aside, of course.

I think the discussion on the trolls kinda misses the point. It's not that these people are consumed with their hatred and spend their life denouncing their enemies. It's the opposite. It takes so little effort to be mean on the internet that it costs next to nothing to do it. The fact that you can automatically follow conversations and websites makes it even easier.

Quoting David Edenden:
"Why Ann and Megan drive the commentors crazy ... with desire!"

Is that a statement? Or a suggestion for a very controversial topic? I mean... Desire? Really? Oh, you are just kidding...

Quoting harkin: and try to create the false impression of consensus.

Those.... bastards. Don't they know that 9/11 changed everything?

Quoting harkin: Hate? Real hate? Too funny.

Hate is the sort of thing that drives the small percentage of posters here who try to get Mickey Kaus and/or Jonah Goldberg banned.

....most thinking humans can separate political views from the rest of the persona enough to understand that most if not all of the bloggers here are decent enough folks with all sorts of interests and backgrounds who don't necessarily eat babies or club seals in their recreation time.

Just because most of these people aren't the same ones flooding these boards with charges of racism, stupidity, dishonesty etc doesn't mean that hate is a prevailing emotion here.

Perhaps you are interpreting the word "hate" too literally. I certainly don't hate these women. "Hate", as used in these threads, means disapproval, dislike or even indignation with a view that may be perceived as particularly detrimental. I do not understand what your point is, though. Do you object to the commenters' criticism of bloggers? I have written enough about this in other posts in this thread, if you care to know what my opinion is about this. I do disagree with you, at least in the emphasis, about separating the

Quoting pink maggie: can we have a moratorium on the word "meme"?!

You spoke too late, I fear: All of the New Blogging is About Memes. Or maybe it's just that I am one of the 78. P.S. Attn: SG -- Poetry alert!

Quoting bjkeefe: ...having Althouse and McArdle on nine times a month is not really doing much to achieve gender balance

Wait, what? I guess you could make a the argument that their particular points of view are already adequately represented on the board and so having them on again doesn't increase the diversity of the site in that respect, but how can you say that having these two women on more frequently doesn't "[do] much to acheive gender balance," assuming--as ohcomeon argued if I remember correctly--that the problem was one of too few women? In other words, if the gender balance of 'vlogs is off due to too many men-only episodes, how does having more non-men-only episodes not "[do] much to achieve gender balance?" Surely you're not saying that these women don't count as women, right?

Quoting Exeus99: Wait, what? I guess you could make a the argument that their particular points of view are already adequately represented on the board and so having them on again doesn't increase the diversity of the site in that respect, but how can you say that having these two women on more frequently doesn't "[do] much to acheive gender balance," assuming--as ohcomeon argued if I remember correctly--that the problem was one of too few women?

In other words, if the gender balance of 'vlogs is off due to too many men-only episodes, how does having more non-men-only episodes not "[do] much to achieve gender balance?" Surely you're not saying that these women don't count as women, right?

I'll take a stab at that. If there are only men participating here, then only men will diavlog with men. obviously. If you add women, but mainly have them speaking to one another, you might be addressing the numerical imbalance, but there's still a substantial underlying gender-related issue.

I think they vastly underestimate the hostility towards Michelle Malkin, who is a major object of hate of the left. I am a little mystified by hatred of Althouse, which comes almost exclusively from the left. For some reason they insist on categorizing her as a conservative, which she isn't. Once that categorization is made she's fair game in their minds. There's some righty anger towards her, mostly when she gets overly emotional, but for the most part they're happy enough to roll with the photos and mischieviousness along with the politics. McCardle is more straightforward in that she's free market, which puts her in the company of conservatives. Though she's probably not actually one, in their minds the distinction is lost. Certainly Insty, with similar politics, gets a ton of hate despite being male. Ann should set up a blind test--do an anonymous blog as a male persona and see what reaction she gets. It would be entertaining to see Ann act male. Maybe arty, close-up photos of Chevy small block V8's and carefully composed photos of beer mugs on the bar at the tavern.

Quoting blofeld42: I think they vastly underestimate the hostility towards Michelle Malkin, who is a major object of hate of the left.

I am a little mystified by hatred of Althouse, which comes almost exclusively from the left. For some reason they insist on categorizing her as a conservative, which she isn't. Once that categorization is made she's fair game in their minds. There's some righty anger towards her, mostly when she gets overly emotional, but for the most part they're happy enough to roll with the photos and mischieviousness along with the politics.

McCardle is more straightforward in that she's free market, which puts her in the company of conservatives. Though she's probably not actually one, in their minds the distinction is lost. Certainly Insty, with similar politics, gets a ton of hate despite being male.

Ann should set up a blind test--do an anonymous blog as a male persona and see what reaction she gets. It would be entertaining to see Ann act male. Maybe arty, close-up photos of Chevy small block V8's and carefully composed photos of beer mugs on the bar at the tavern.

Let's be clear. Lots of people hate Michelle

Quoting bjkeefe: Says a lot about the leaders, or "leaders," you've been exposed to, doesn't it?

It's not even just the leaders of my own generation, it's all these f'in boomers who look back on the day when JFK inspired them to, what . . . lead the free world by standing up to Vietnam, Cuba, etc . . . ? Maybe if I were living in Canada I'd want someone to inspire me to double the humanitarian foreign aid budget or something like that, but Obama telling me that the awesome God of the blue states wants me to bomb Pakistan (in so many words) just doesn't really do it for me . . .

Quoting blofeld42:
I am a little mystified by hatred of Althouse, which comes almost exclusively from the left.

Ann should set up a blind test--do an anonymous blog as a male persona and see what reaction she gets. It would be entertaining to see Ann act male. Maybe arty, close-up photos of Chevy small block V8's and carefully composed photos of beer mugs on the bar at the tavern.

I'm not sure who's criticism you are talking about. But just in case: 1. No hatred, dislike. 2. My criticism is gender neutral. It would be the same whether this diavlog had been conducted by a man or a woman. But, I guess you are talking about someone else. I just wouldn't like to have another generalization fly by without addressing it.

Quoting del: It's not even just the leaders of my own generation, it's all these f'in boomers who look back on the day when JFK inspired them to, what . . . lead the free world by standing up to Vietnam, Cuba, etc . . . ?

That wasn't so much the boomers, but their parents - the WWII generation. McGovern is a better example of a boomer icon.

Quoting Eastwest: If that's true, here's one you'll love (a cut-and-paste from my Post #90 on the "McCain on the March" thread):

****
Anyway, it's a five-minute Real Audio segment from 37:45 to 42:30 (just move the slider forward) of "Rethinking the Sixties," this part by a moltenly-enraged Charles Monroe Kane: http://broadcast.uwex.edu:8080/ramge.../bok080824a.rm)
****

EW

I couldn't get the link to work but I agree McCain is a very special kind of orator. I really think he'd make a much better blogger than candidate . . . that "maybe Romney should get his varmint gun and chase his illegal immigrant gardeners off his lawn" is the best line I've heard alll year.

Quoting Exeus99: Wait, what? I guess you could make a the argument that their particular points of view are already adequately represented on the board and so having them on again doesn't increase the diversity of the site in that respect, but how can you say that having these two women on more frequently doesn't "[do] much to acheive gender balance," assuming--as ohcomeon argued if I remember correctly--that the problem was one of too few women?

In other words, if the gender balance of 'vlogs is off due to too many men-only episodes, how does having more non-men-only episodes not "[do] much to achieve gender balance?" Surely you're not saying that these women don't count as women, right?

One would like to have more women that present good quality diavlogs represented in BHTV. Since a significant number of the vocal audience here is expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of these two particular bloggers, it is only fair to say that they don't meet the standards to be counted towards gender balance. In brief, not just number, but also quality.

Quoting Jyminee: Ann revealed a lot when she described her blog as an art project. She shouldn't be considered a serious political commentator--she's much more of a (wannabe) provocateur, riffing on whatever is in the news.

What I find annoying about her is she writes/says things just to get a rise out of people. Someone like Dan Drezner will say that he's playing devil's advocate or taking the opposite position in order to flesh out an argument, while Ann just seems to like being provocative or argumentative. See this clip for example, where she says that "Obama is boring in the way he speaks"--I mean, what? Like him or not, he's clearly a good orator, but Ann takes the opposite position just to be disagreeable. She seems to revel in saying the things others won't, but usually there's a reason no one else says them...

If you ever read the comments on her blog you see that most of them are in the same riffing vein, so clearly she has a like-minded following.

I think you identified an important aspect, not only about AA, but about this crowd of people, that indulge in finding fault

So it is your position that what ohcomeon was counting with early posts in successive comment threads of episodes without women was in fact the number of episodes in a row without QUALITY women 'heads, or QUALITY 'vlogs without women? I guess that's possible. As a defense of bjkeefe's comment, though, you have to read into their statement about failing to promote gender balance the additional phrase "and by gender balance I refer to the balance of quality 'vlogs put forward by members of each sex," which seems a little generous. Also, if we're only counting quality 'vlogs by women as contributing to gender balance, shouldn't we discount non-quality 'vlogs by men? I mean, to keep a balanced standard. If so, then wasn't ohecomeon's count off and/or isn't the gender imbalance not as bad as it otherwise would be--I doubt you'd assert that all the men-only vlogs were of a quality that meets your standard.

Quoting aemjeff: If you add women, but mainly have them speaking to one another, you might be addressing the numerical imbalance, but there's still a substantial underlying gender-related issue.

Ok, that's a plausible definition (or redefinition) of gender-imbalance. I'm not sure I believe that what ohcomeon was counting was the number of consecutive 'vlogs without women talking to men, or without anyone discussing women or women's issues, but if so I would probably not have poked quite as much fun at the effort. I'm not sure it really clears things up totally, though; under this standard, what would count towards improving the underlying gender-related issue?

Here are the short answers;

Quoting Exeus99: So it is your position that what ohcomeon was counting with early posts in successive comment threads of episodes without women was in fact the number of episodes in a row without QUALITY women 'heads, or QUALITY 'vlogs without women? I guess that's possible.

I don't know exactly what ohcomeon was counting. I suggest to count again with new, revised, counting guidelines.

As a defense of bjkeefe's comment, though, you have to read into their statement about failing to promote gender balance the additional phrase "and by gender balance I refer to the balance of quality 'vlogs put forward by members of each sex," which seems a little generous.

Yes, that's it. I have completed Brendan's sentences like you suggest, before. It just feels unnecessary to do it all the time, and of course quite intrusive. But, you did a good job above. That's exactly what I think, and I'll dare to say, most likely Brendan's view.

Also, if we're only counting quality 'vlogs by women as contributing to gender balance, shouldn't we discount non-quality 'vlogs by men? I mean, to keep a balanced standard.

Yes, again. You are right, same standards for both genders. We should do that.

If so, then wasn't ohecomeon's count off and/or isn't

Quoting Jyminee: Ann just seems to like being provocative or argumentative. See this clip for example, where she says that "Obama is boring in the way he speaks"--I mean, what? Like him or not, he's clearly a good orator, but Ann takes the opposite position just to be disagreeable.

Excuse, me Jyminee, but, as little as I resonate with AA's positions (i.e. only half the time), she really got this one right. Obama's speeches (content-wise) and speaking style (artificial, wooden, pseudo-presidential, always subconsciously preening in the mirror of his own mind, utterly unspontaneous, completely canned and predictable soaring timbre and cadence) completely put me to sleep. No, he's not eloquent (except, say, compared to GWB). He's smooth enough to juice up the kids and resuscitate the Dems by inspiring the Gen-Xers and later (no mean feat so you have to give him credit there) who've by and large never heard genuine eloquence. MLK was often marvelously eloquent. Bobby Kennedy could be at times. JFK, meh, well, sort of sometimes... but, no, not Barack. He gets the job done, but I never want to forget my pillow if I've got to listen to him for more than five minutes. So, yeah, lots to carp about with AA, I suppose. (Though kind of a waste of time I think: put coddling fundamentalists in

I enjoy watching both of you on blogging heads, it is usually interesting. BUT, here's a theory- you both come across as VERY self-absorbed and tend to universalize your own experiences. I can see how that would enrage some people, although it doesn't really bother me a great deal.

Quoting Ocean: We do need to establish the guidelines though. Coming up with the rules may prove to be somewhat complicated, but not impossible. How about that? Are you in for the task?

Ocean: I'm glad we're getting somewhere! To be honest, though, it's not really my standards that we're discussing here--I would throw neither Ms. McArdle nor Prof. Althouse out of the "counts as women" column--and in truth I was never all that concerned with the type of gender imbalance others complained about. I didn't buy the underlying argument that the BloggingHeads managers needed to be cajoled into including more women's voices--I guess I give BH more credit than that. I also don't think it's very sporting to insist on more episodes with women and then, once given more episodes with women, to complain that these weren't the KIND of women one really wanted. In a way saying that only women addressing certain issues or discussing things in a certain way should count towards addressing the gender imbalance seems overly restricitve to me--who's to say what should be considered "women's issues;" isn't confining certain topics to women just playing into the segregation at the heart of the

I like Megan. If she has a fault it's one similiar to the many young people who appear on here: they may be book smart, published a lot, many graduate degrees, but I am always wondering how life smart they are. What other rites of passage have they been through? Many times I have the nagging suspicion they haven't done a whole lot outside of the Academy. John

Quoting bkjazfan: I like Megan. If she has a fault it's one similiar to the many young people who appear on here: they may be book smart, published a lot, many graduate degrees, but I am always wondering how life smart they are. What other rites of passage have they been through? Many times I have the nagging suspicion they haven't done a whole lot outside of the Academy.

John

That pretty accurately sums up my feelings. She can make good points and she's capable of sustaining an argument. Sometimes you get the feeling that she's trapped in her own cleverness and doesn't always filter her ideas as carefully as she should.

Fair enough. I don't know how BHTV decides on who to invite as a blogger. I've seen lists of suggestions, but I don't know whether there is any actual follow up. Finding out more about this would be a starting point. In your last post (the one I'm responding to), you state your opinions in a clear and balanced fashion. I like that.

Just in case Ann is reading: I kind of enjoyed her blog, found it interesting, and would never say I hated her. My negative impression of her is directly the product of her despicable treatment of Jessica Valenti and her subsequent petulant behavior after being called on it.

Ann, bullying? I don't think so. Certainly compared to Wright attempting (usually without success) to work over Mickey Kaus she isn't. The Garrance outburst was more entertaining in a train wreck sort of way than bullying. She usually doesn't even engage in sharp questioning. You're nuts.

Quoting Ocean: I'm not sure who's criticism you are talking about. But just in case:

1. No hatred, dislike.

2. My criticism is gender neutral. It would be the same whether this diavlog had been conducted by a man or a woman.

But, I guess you are talking about someone else. I just wouldn't like to have another generalization fly by without addressing it.

General lefty blog hatred of Althouse. It isn't dislike; it's hatred. I think she goes overboard in assuming the gender-specificity of the hatred; almost any blogger expressing dislike of Kerry in the prior election would have been savaged by the kos/marcotte/feministing crowd. She was simply available because she had a high traffic blog, and so wound up in the two-minutes-of-hate crosshairs. As is frequently pointed out, the lefties seem to be looking for heretics to burn. She is in fact a lot closer to their positions than their rhetoric would suggest.

Quoting blofeld42: Ann, bullying? I don't think so. Certainly compared to Wright attempting (usually without success) to work over Mickey Kaus she isn't. The Garrance outburst was more entertaining in a train wreck sort of way than bullying.

She usually doesn't even engage in sharp questioning. You're nuts.

I'm nuts. Alrighty. But, her treatment of Garance, and by extension Jessica Valenti, weren't bullying, bad behavior, taking advantage of where she happened to be standing. Just entertainment for you. I'm glad you were amused.

Oh, I think Althouse came off badly on the BH exchange. She probably read too much into the topic when she laid into Garrance. It was kind of fun to see her riled up, though. Garrance didn't come off that well under contentious circumstances; too passive. But if Valenti et al can't take a hit, they should stick to exchanging recipes. The lefty reaction to Althouse's comments were wildly over the top. It was almost like they were looking for heretics to burn.

Quoting blofeld42: General lefty blog hatred of Althouse. It isn't dislike; it's hatred.

As is frequently pointed out, the lefties seem to be looking for heretics to burn.

First, you can't tell me what I "feel", because, simply, you have no clue. So, you are wrong when you imply that I hate Althouse. I am the best source of direct data about my own opinions. Respect that and don't argue. It's senseless and embarrassing for you to even try. Second, your statement about the "lefties", does that imply that the "righties" don't look for heretics to burn? I'll let you answer, if you so choose. The answer to me is obvious and it raises more doubts as how your reasoning works here.

When Ann went off on Garance was she serious or being facetious? I thought it was the latter but if it was the former than her temper needs some kind of work or therapy. John

Quoting blofeld42: Oh, I think Althouse came off badly on the BH exchange. She probably read too much into the topic when she laid into Garrance. It was kind of fun to see her riled up, though. Garrance didn't come off that well under contentious circumstances; too passive.

But if Valenti et al can't take a hit, they should stick to exchanging recipes. The lefty reaction to Althouse's comments were wildly over the top. It was almost like they were looking for heretics to burn.

We're not talking about "taking a hit." We're talking about, in Valenti's case, a gratuitous attack based on an overly (and overtly) personal observation on the part of Althouse. It was uncalled for. When she was called on it, instead of apologizing for stepping out of line, she made it a personal mission to insult and berate her critics, asserting that she'd done nothing wrong. She showed no inkling of basic politesse. In Garance's case (this is answer to your question, too, John) she obviously had a pre-planned set-piece waiting for the topic to be brought up. It was rude, it was offensive, and it belonged In O'Reilly-and-Coulter-and-Savage-and-Malkin land, not among polite, serious people. She took advantage of the fact

Althouse had become a figure of hate long before the BH exchange, and before the Valenti incident. The lefties simply latched onto that, petting and nurturing their grievance. Althouse (and McArdle) routinely receive more, and more personal, abuse, daily. The lefty blogs make a habit of adopting a tone of perpetual outrage. The one Valenti is associated with, feministing, adopts a no-prisoners tone reminiscent of Marcotte, full of personal and vicious attacks on people they disagree with. Suddenly, when one writer there has some minor criticism directed her way, they adopt the tone of violated church ladies. "How dare they engage in a personal attack on a LADY!" Sorry gals, but if you want to play by full contact rules, you're going to get tackled on occasion.

Quoting blofeld42: Althouse had become a figure of hate long before the BH exchange, and before the Valenti incident. The lefties simply latched onto that, petting and nurturing their grievance. Althouse (and McArdle) routinely receive more, and more personal, abuse, daily.

The lefty blogs make a habit of adopting a tone of perpetual outrage. The one Valenti is associated with, feministing, adopts a no-prisoners tone reminiscent of Marcotte, full of personal and vicious attacks on people they disagree with. Suddenly, when one writer there has some minor criticism directed her way, they adopt the tone of violated church ladies. "How dare they engage in a personal attack on a LADY!" Sorry gals, but if you want to play by full contact rules, you're going to get tackled on occasion.

That's right, as John Housman famously said (I realize it was a commercial):
You have to earn it. I don't discredit Ann's intelligence - it's her tactics that are clear, self-serving and contentious.

Quoting graz: That's right, as John Housman famously said (I realize it was a commercial):
You have to earn it. I don't discredit Ann's intelligence - it's her tactics that are clear, self-serving and contentious.

I think there is some confusion here. I agree with what you are saying, I've written ad nauseam about that. But when blofeld42 says:

...adopts a no-prisoners tone reminiscent of Marcotte, full of personal and vicious attacks on people they disagree with. Suddenly, when one writer there has some minor criticism directed her way, they adopt the tone of violated church ladies. "How dare they engage in a personal attack on a LADY!" Sorry gals, but if you want to play by full contact rules, you're going to get tackled on occasion.

it is not about Althouse, it's about women at "feministing". See, when Althouse does exactly that, you can't say "Sorry gals, but if you want to play by full contact rules, you're going to get tackled on occasion" because that would prove you are one of the lefties personally and viciously abusing their opponents. Get it?

Quoting Ocean: See, when Althouse does exactly that, you can't say "Sorry gals, but if you want to play by full contact rules, you're going to get tackled on occasion" because that would prove you are one of the lefties personally and viciously abusing their opponents. Get it?

Upon further review - comprende. Gracias.

Quoting blofeld42: Althouse had become a figure of hate long before the BH exchange, and before the Valenti incident. The lefties simply latched onto that, petting and nurturing their grievance. Althouse (and McArdle) routinely receive more, and more personal, abuse, daily.

The lefty blogs make a habit of adopting a tone of perpetual outrage. The one Valenti is associated with, feministing, adopts a no-prisoners tone reminiscent of Marcotte, full of personal and vicious attacks on people they disagree with. Suddenly, when one writer there has some minor criticism directed her way, they adopt the tone of violated church ladies. "How dare they engage in a personal attack on a LADY!" Sorry gals, but if you want to play by full contact rules, you're going to get tackled on occasion.

You speak of the "left" as a monolith, as if that abstraction has any meaning to anyone who doesn't have a stake in silly characterizations of folks on that side. It's meaningless. You also don't make a very good point. Whether or not AA is the target of abuse is completely immaterial to whether or not she should be expected to behave with respect toward other people.

Huh? Althouse has said she feels liberated about not caring about the over-the-top attacks, and McArdle has said the same. And neither of them have adopted the faux-riot-grrl pose of feministing. (They're daring and transgressive, until they get a skinned knee, and then start to fetchingly and coyly pout about the rules of decorum and those mean brutes.) McArdle is earnestly wonky, and shows admirable restraint in the face of considerable provocation. Althouse's sin seems to be that she occasionally points out lefties are sometimes full of it. Feministing's site name is a play on an anal sex act, and they very frequently attack opponents in crude and personal terms. A&M are far more sinned against than sinning.

The lefty blogs are on a jihad against Althouse, not the righty blogs. The attitude on the right when she transgresses against them is more one of puzzled amusement or indifference, and appreciation for the other stuff she writes. And no, Althouse is not a righty. It seems the left just wants some heretics to burn.

Quoting blofeld42: The lefty blogs are on a jihad against Althouse, not the righty blogs. The attitude on the right when she transgresses against them is more one of puzzled amusement or indifference, and appreciation for the other stuff she writes.

And no, Althouse is not a righty. It seems the left just wants some heretics to burn.

I think you will only get satisfaction if you read: "We, the united lefties, have the mission of burning that heretic Ann, after inflicting as much cruelty and abuse as we can." Now she is a martyr. Can we stop this nonsense? She is not that important. We simply don't like her. Otherwise, we wish her well. Accept it and move on.

Quoting Ocean: She is not that important. We simply don't like her. Otherwise, we wish her well. Accept it and move on.

Succinct and to the point.

Quoting blofeld42: The lefty blogs are on a jihad against Althouse, not the righty blogs.

Surely, then, you will have no trouble coming up with, say, five links to five different blogs to support your case. And I don't mean old ones reacting to the Valenti story or the ensuing meltdown here on BH.tv. I mean evidence from within the past year, let's say. It is my impression that Althouse is beneath the notice of lefty blogs.

I vividly remember, way back, Eric Alterman saying (and writing) that all he knew about Ann Althouse was the Valenti thing. (Indeed I read his blog for a couple years before ever discovering BHTV and I never saw her name mentioned). Point is, if she was completely under his radar, I think this supports the idea that she's not as hated (or even as well known) by the liberal blogosphere as she fancies herself. I've always gotten the impression that Ann (and her fans) are slightly deluded in their view of her stature in the blogosphere.

Quoting Ocean: Can we stop this nonsense? She is not that important. We simply don't like her. Otherwise, we wish her well. Accept it and move on.

Word. Both Ann and Megan have talked about how they came to their politics - in reaction to boneheaded liberals. Well, you know what, I went to college too, and even volunteered for the campus PIRG. And they were a bunch of jerks too. So I quit after one day. But instead of wigging out and becoming a libertarian, I sought out better liberals, majored in econ, and got really into Paul Krugman and Robert H Frank (this is the early 1990s). And yes, I did have a Milton Friedman phase, but his originality and honesty makes him easy to appreciate. So that's why I find their "let's antagonize the lefties" schtick tiresome.

Quoting Ocean: I think you will only get satisfaction if you read: "We, the united lefties, have the mission of burning that heretic Ann, after inflicting as much cruelty and abuse as we can."

Well, no. So far as I know the the entire left is not plotting to insult Ann Althouse. But the phenomena of trollish attacks on her is almost entirely a left one. Pretty much ditto for McArdle, as far as I can tell, though I don't read her as often. I should; she's an excellent expository writer.

Sadly, No: http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/5700.html
Feministing: http://www.feministing.com/archives/006767.html
Fire Dog Lake: http://firedoglake.com/2007/11/13/la...night-william/
glenn Kenny: http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/...mment-72805510
TRex: http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/09/la...that-sandwich/
Oliver Willis: http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/10/...use-hypocrite/ (see comments, "just a pathetic drunk")
Amanda Marcotte: http://pandagon.net/2007/03/07/ann-a...for-being-hot/

You're mistaking my argument: I'm not saying Althouse is the sine qua non of lefty hatred in the way, say, Rush Limbaugh or George Bush or Halliburton is. I'm saying the trollish attacks from people that engage her are typically from a lefty perspective. Ditto for McArdle. The interesting question is, why? Althouse has, probably, more in common with the lefties than the righties. As I recall she's voted Democratic almost entirely with a couple exceptions. Yet the righties mostly roll with it, while the lefties that engage her are looking for heretics and use the most shrill, over-the-top rhetoric to attack her. McArdle is a free marketer, so the lefties might conflate her with a conservative and reflexively reach for any term of abuse at hand. Instead they might try to make common cause with her on other libertarian issues. Why one approach rather than the other? So far as I know the religious right doesn't get wound up about all things Insty, despite his stands on biological ethics. They'll certainly make trollish attacks, but they tend to reserve their fire for people they regard as completely beyond the pale.

Quoting blofeld42: Sadly, No: http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/5700.html
Feministing: http://www.feministing.com/archives/006767.html
Fire Dog Lake: http://firedoglake.com/2007/11/13/la...night-william/
glenn Kenny: http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/...mment-72805510
TRex: http://firedoglake.com/2007/08/09/la...that-sandwich/
Oliver Willis: http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/10/...use-hypocrite/ (see comments, "just a pathetic drunk")
Amanda Marcotte: http://pandagon.net/2007/03/07/ann-a...for-being-hot/

You must have missed this part:

Quoting bjkeefe: And I don't mean old ones reacting to the Valenti story or the ensuing meltdown here on BH.tv. I mean evidence from within the past year, let's say.

Today's date is 28 August 2008. The Sadly, No! post is from 24 April 2007. It is an obvious follow-up to the Valenti kerfuffle and BH.tv appearance. The Feministing post is from 27 March 2007. As to content, ibid. The Amanda Marcotte link is broken, but it appears from the URL to be from 7 March 2007. The Glenn Kenny post is from 14 June 2007. The TRex post is from 9 August 2007. Okay, close enough. But note its opening line:

I've mostly stopped reading Ann Althouse, really.

To the rest of the content: The FDL example has nothing to do with Althouse. It mentions her in passing, at the end of a long post about something else entirely. To even pick this out, let alone think it's an "attack," makes me wonder whether you're not Ann, posing as a sockpuppet. Oliver Willis and TRex are both mocking her reading into the hidden subtext of onion rings in a campaign commercial, something which she posted on

Quoting blofeld42: has, probably, more in common with the lefties than the righties. As I recall she's voted Democratic almost entirely with a couple exceptions.

This is baloney. The fact that you would say something so absurd indicates either total ignorance or complete dishonesty. Who cares who Ann voted for in 1988? If you want a pat on the head because Althouse used to be less conservative, fine, consider your head patted. (Though, I don't know why you would believe those claims. We know Althouse is a liar because she says she's staying neutral in the presidential campaign, and she says she's moderate in political orientation. Both of these assertions are demonstrably false; just read her blog. So, why would anyone believe any other claims she makes?) Maybe you could do us all a favor and tell us some of the things she has in common with lefties. If you've read her blog, you know it's devoted to tearing down Democrats and boosting Republicans. If you've watched her appearances on BHTV, you know that she rarely expresses a moderate (much less liberal) point of view, and reflexively and emotionally defends the Bush Administration, the Republican Party, and the conservative agenda. The

blofeld42: It occurs to me, both from your comments and the ones on Glenn Kenny's post, that if there's any sort of a jihad going on here, it's the few zealots who patrol the Web, looking for the slightest thing said against Althouse. I mean, jeebus, you guys are like the nuts who run around looking for kindergarten teachers who name teddy bears Muhammad.

Oh, hardly; I only occasionally read Althouse's blog, or McArdle's. The subject came up here, and the psychology of the critics is kind of interesting. I think that they're mistaken in the sexism argument. The terms of the criticism they receive may be sexist, but that's mostly just people grabbing at whatever argument is at hand to attack them. If they were males they'd still be attacked with vitrol, just in different terms. It may betray a sexist attitude of the critics, but the fundamental reason they're being attacked is not sexism.

As I recall she voted for Feingold and Gore. I think her only Republican vote was Bush in 2004. The rest of the time it's been a straight Democratic ticket.

Quoting blofeld42: Oh, hardly; I only occasionally read Althouse's blog, or McArdle's. The subject came up here, and the psychology of the critics is kind of interesting.

Okay. I am happy to withdraw my suggestion that you are one of that group. I maintain, however, that the group does exist, and they mirror Ann in their vanishingly low threshold for criticism.

I think that they're mistaken in the sexism argument. The terms of the criticism they receive may be sexist, but that's mostly just people grabbing at whatever argument is at hand to attack them. If they were males they'd still be attacked with vitrol, just in different terms. It may betray a sexist attitude of the critics, but the fundamental reason they're being attacked is not sexism.

I think you're right, mostly, although that doesn't forgive sexist attacks in any case. Especially not in the case of these two, when there is so much other readily available ammunition.

Quoting blofeld42: As I recall she voted for Feingold and Gore. I think her only Republican vote was Bush in 2004. The rest of the time it's been a straight Democratic ticket.

I don't buy this defense, just as I don't buy it from Mickey. Even if I believe it, a single vote is far outweighed by a non-stop campaign of bashing the Democrats and praising (or at best, ignoring) the Republicans. Both of them like to portray themselves, variously, as tough-minded independents or critiquing their own party, but the one-sided nature of their long histories puts the lie to these. And when election time rolls around, sorry, but if you won't stand up and speak on behalf of the party you claim to vote for, I'm not buying your self-applied label. The most polite interpretation I could put on their attitudes is that they'd be proud to say they were Republicans if this were the 1950s; i.e., back before the neocons and fundies took over the GOP. As it stands now, they don't want to be publicly associated with the extremist mindset that calls for invading oil-rich countries and condemning gays to burn in hell, but they're both, ultimately, not sympathetic

Clearly, some commenters here have a ton of time on their hands. I find different sets of guests interesting for different reasons. I would never expect a Fukuyama-Kagan DV to cover the same things as a Wright-Kaus or McWhorter-Loury pairing. The people who dismiss these bloggers as "unserious" do so for dogmatic reasons. Please keep these guests (and all the rest) coming back. I hope the commenters here realize that someone in the world might enjoy or be enriched by this DV, even if you are uninterested. Don't call for banning what you don't agree with or find interesting. That said, I do not care for segments where specific comments or commenting trends are mentioned within the DV.

In fact Althouse was pro-Iraq war, which is the proximate cause for the vitrol of the lefties that went off on her. I suspect she's religion-friendly; she's taught a religion-and-law class, and doesn't give off the Hitchens/Dawkins village atheist vibe. But I have no direct knowledge of that.

Quoting blofeld42: In fact Althouse was pro-Iraq war, which is the proximate cause for the vitrol of the lefties that went off on her.

I suspect she's religion-friendly; she's taught a religion-and-law class, and doesn't give off the Hitchens/Dawkins village atheist vibe. But I have no direct knowledge of that.

All right, Ann. Your sock-puppetry has managed to bore me completely.

Quoting nyc123: The people who dismiss these bloggers as "unserious" do so for dogmatic reasons.

And what, pray tell, would our dogma be? Besides a dislike of vacuousness, and a preference for something more substantial than the kind of chit-chat we can get elsewhere, I mean?

"I didn't like the premise of Saddleback and found Rick Warren asking a lot of Oprah like soft ball questions, forcing a nod to religion, and implicitly, as Chris Matthews has argued, setting a religious test for holding public office with the consequent religious pandering that comes from that." That's an astute observation by you and by Chris Matthews.

On reflection, they even seemed more self-absorbed when they were discussing why people dislike them. That's subtle irony for you. Perhaps at bottom, it's taking onesself seriously- They didn't consider the possiblity that some of the criticisms of them had merit. It's kind of like if Obama blamed an electoral defeat solely on racism, or Clinton on sexism or McCain on ageism. Perhaps some of the people who dislike you don't do so because they're raving lunatics, or unhinged, or sexist. Perhaps part of it is either your content or delivery.

What a fascinating bit of web sociology, that Megan can dismiss the place of biology in the educational core, then bring in the old "Darwinists are just like Creationists" canard, and there has been next to no commentary on it. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but, to a biologist, it's just startling that all of these bright commenters were untroubled.

Quoting kynefski: What a fascinating bit of web sociology, that Megan can dismiss the place of biology in the educational core, then bring in the old "Darwinists are just like Creationists" canard, and there has been next to no commentary on it.

Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but, to a biologist, it's just startling that all of these bright commenters were untroubled.

I don't think "untroubled" is an accurate reflection of how people feel. It seems to me that much of the conversation has been about the participants, or "meta" on the same topic. Also, as I remember Megan's argument, she said that there are plenty of people who believe in evolution but who didn't get there via critical thought. That strikes me, at any rate, as pretty accurate.

Quoting AemJeff: Also, as I remember Megan's argument, she said that there are plenty of people who believe in evolution but who didn't get there via critical thought. That strikes me, at any rate, as pretty accurate.

True enough, if you mean that most people haven't personally analyzed the evidence. Assuming that seems reasonable, what would it mean to think critically about [i]evolution? Everyone agrees that life evolves. When you say that people "believe in evolution," I'm assuming you mean they accept an account of evolution as an unguided natural process, as they were told by their teachers. So, no, they haven't thought critically about it, but what was there for them to think critically about? Whether evolution is unguided? And how would they have done that?

Quoting kynefski: True enough, if you mean that most people haven't personally analyzed the evidence. Assuming that seems reasonable, what would it mean to think critically about [i]evolution? Everyone agrees that life evolves. When you say that people "believe in evolution," I'm assuming you mean they accept an account of evolution as an unguided natural process, as they were told by their teachers. So, no, they haven't thought critically about it, but what was there for them to think critically about? Whether evolution is unguided? And how would they have done that?

Megan's point seemed to be that mere belief in evolution isn't, by itself, a reason to feel as if you have a better understanding of the world than somebody who starts from a religiously dogmatic point of view. The real distinction is between how you know what you know, rather than what it is you think you know.

I am amused, though not Althouse. I suppose I should be upset that you're accusing me of writing like a girl.

...2. I thought that Megan Mcardle's rough equivalence between evolution and creationism was not fully thought through. Her comment, which carries some weight, was that her friends believe in evolution in the way that the religious believe in creation. They are told it and they don't investigate it scientifically and are upset when anyone attacks what they take to be received wisdom. But where the equivalence breaks down is that one is a scientific theory and the one is a faith based account, part of a faith based cosmology. Evolution as a theory of science invites its own falsification by evidence. Creationism outlaws evidence as a ground of discourse. So while it would be better if folks understood evolution scientifically, there is no warrant for equating its adherents to true believers, because the theory must be scientifically robust to sustain itself... Who said this? Itzik Basman

Quoting kynefski: What a fascinating bit of web sociology, that Megan can dismiss the place of biology in the educational core, then bring in the old "Darwinists are just like Creationists" canard, and there has been next to no commentary on it.

Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but, to a biologist, it's just startling that all of these bright commenters were untroubled.

A fair bust, k, but in my own defense, I'll say that taking Megan to task for her howlers is something I ran out of gas for long ago. There are just way too many blithe assertions coming from this particular source to make any one of them worth typing about.

Quoting blofeld42: I suppose I should be upset that you're accusing me of writing like a girl.

LOL! Nicely done.

NYC:

Don't call for banning what you don't agree with or find interesting. That said, I do not care for segments where specific comments or commenting trends are mentioned within the DV.

The second sentence sounds dangerously close to going against your own advice (the first sentence.) I have no problem with commentors point out who they think is good and who they think is not (and why.) Bob doesn't have to listen to our suggestions. Feedback is good.

Quoting blofeld42: As I recall she voted for Feingold and Gore. I think her only Republican vote was Bush in 2004. The rest of the time it's been a straight Democratic ticket.

You don't actually have any idea how many Republicans she has voted for, or whether she's always voted "a straight Democratic ticket," right? You're just exaggerating. I think you should stick to the truth. For example, Ann voted for Gerald Ford in 1976. That's two Republican votes, enough to invalidate and disprove your point. I'm aware that Ann claims to have mostly voted Democratic throughout her life, but people change. Read her blog; you're find she now regards with sneering contempt the people and values she embraced in her younger years. She cannot disguise her antipathy for the left; she can only lie about it — but not convincingly. Something you might bear in mind is that we're not arguing with the old Ann of yesteryear; the Ann who voted for Jesse Jackson in 1988. We're arguing with the Ann of today, the Ann whose blog and BHTV appearances are used to belittle, insult, and attack the left, while providing cover for the right -- and not just some abstract, theoretical

K, I didn't get to that part of the diavlog yet but I definitely would have jumped on it. Comparing Creationism and Evolution is just so silly, that it's almost not worth arguing over. Anyone who believes in creationism either A.) has not really dug into the details of evolution, or B.) doesn't make their decision based on scientific reasoning. PS- though I usually like him, Keith Olberman is completely ruining Obama's speech by reading portions of the text before Obama has even had a chance to speak. Gotta love the MSM.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: PS- though I usually like him, Keith Olberman is completely ruining Obama's speech by reading portions of the text before Obama has even had a chance to speak. Gotta love the MSM.

Totally agreed! That was so stupid. I immediately switched to CNN. Though, like you, I greatly appreciate Olbermann, he can be way too strident, some times. I think he'd do well to tone it down a notch. (Easy for me to say; he's the big successful celebrity. He evidently knows what he's doing.)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Comparing Creationism and Evolution is just so silly, that it's almost not worth arguing over. Anyone who believes in creationism either A.) has not really dug into the details of evolution, or B.) doesn't make their decision based on scientific reasoning.

uncle e: I think B. was roughly Ms. McArdle's point, that B. applied to most people whether they were pro-creationism or pro-evolution (if those are even sensible terms!). As far as it goes I think she may be correct; most people probably hold their own beliefs based on something other than a rigorous, scientific-method-informed investigation of the relevant facts applying their own pure reason. Whether the proportion of people who DO is higher for the pro-evolution or the anti-evolution side is an empirical question the answer to which is unlikely to be found--how would we get true response from the people under investigation? I would guess that the pro-evolution side would have more people who could defend their position cogently without the use of the type of argumentation Ms. McArdle (justly) decries, but on the other hand mine isn't a completely disinterested or unbiased guess--most people want to think their side's the rational one!

It is always a pleasure to listen to, like, Ms. McCardle, especially for her determined attempt to make "like" the most-used word of the, like, English language. If we talk like a Valley-doll, we'll be thought of ('hated') as a Valley-doll.

Xeuss, I still haven't watched the segment. I was responding just based on the comments. I have a tough time dealing with Meghan and Ann as it is. And seeing as how the whole evolution/creationism debate makes my blood boil, throw in the fact that it is these two people discussing it, I'm hesitant to listen for the sake of my own sanity.

Like, oh ma gAAaawd...

Quoting a Duoist: It is always a pleasure to listen to, like, Ms. McCardle, especially for her determined attempt to make "like" the most-used word of the, like, English language.

If we talk like a Valley-doll, we'll be thought of ('hated') as a Valley-doll.

It's sooooo, like, true!

Wait. What's this? Has the jihad resumed???

Republicans In A Tizzy Over Invesco Set

Never let it be said that Republicans and their counterparts in the conservative blogosphere (yes, Ann “I Like To Drink Wine and Blog About American Idol” Althouse, I’m looking right at you) can’t attempt to manufacture a scandal out of thin air that shows just how stupid they are.

[...]

So Ann “Liberal Boobies Enrage Me” Althouse whips herself up into a righteous indignation, which is promptly echoed throughout the other sites. (I won’t dignify her with a link, look it up) How dare Obama? Is he trying to suggest that he’s a God or something??? The presumption! Do you see how messianic he is? His supporters are like a cult! (imagine her furious fingers typing away)

Yes, there's more. And it gets better.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: NYC:

The second sentence sounds dangerously close to going against your own advice (the first sentence.)

Well, using the words "That said", means I realize the two statements are not unrelated (dbl neg for effect here) but, in fact, are different. I do believe there is a difference between calling for Bloggers to be dismissed from the ranks of bhtv and saying one "doesn't care for X". The first being extreme and reactionary, the other citing a specific genre of topics (which Bob Wright also gets into) that one finds limited and not engaging. The first is akin to a personal attack (and is usually accompanied by an ad-hominem argument) the second is critical of the entire "answer back to the commentariat" thing that some bloggers here do...just my personal choice.

I have no problem with commentors point out who they think is good and who they think is not (and why.) Bob doesn't have to listen to our suggestions. Feedback is good.

Pointing out what one thinks is good (and who one thinks is good) for specific reasons is really great, but some comments here and on other DVs (not just involving

Quoting nyc123: Pointing out what one thinks is good (and who one thinks is good) for specific reasons is really great, but some comments here and on other DVs (not just involving these two) don't make it to that level of constructive criticism.

Pointing out what is not good and spelling out the reasons can also be constructive criticism. Of course, whether it will end up being constructive or not, will depend on whether Megan and Ann use this criticism to improve their style of blogging, or alternatively, whether Bob uses this criticism to make a better choice of bloggers. You can't say that criticism isn't constructive just because you don't like it or don't agree with it. That isn't constructive!

uncle eb: Fair enough, but I think you might agree with Ms. McArdle on this point more than you imagine you might.

Megan McArdle is blind to Hillary Clinton's appeal and support. If she and Bill do their part - which they will - and Sen. Obama somehow still loses, she will be able to raise scads of money and will be even more the favorite for the nomination four years hence than she is now. McArdle evidently is such an anti-Clintonite that she cannot see these fairly obvious facts. Circumstances can change between now and then, but how in the hell does she wonder who in the hell would give Hillary money. The ability of so many Democrats so utterly to dismiss the Clintons as good faith Democratic standard-bearers is astonishing. This d/v was recorded prior to Hill and Bill's speeches, so some slack can be cut, but I'd love to see more Dems cut similar slack for the Clintons. Grating, at best. -Arkie

Dig Megan's Palinesque eyewear!