This whole thing smells like troll bait. I'm not playing.

Quoting claymisher: This whole thing smells like troll bait. I'm not playing.

You actually get a shout out in it. You should watch it, regardless of whether it's real or fake there's some real entertainment value here.

"as Mark Steyn said on the Rush Limbaugh show... Holy crap ! Althouse really is as full of crap as I've always assumed - a know-nothing drivel-monger.

Quoting pampl: You actually get a shout out in it. You should watch it, regardless of whether it's real or fake there's some real entertainment value here.

Yikes. Then I'm definitely not listening!

I hadn't heard about any of these events before this diavlog, but I have to say that I was slightly alarmed at myself in terms of how long into the diavlog I was finally convinced that these two were not being sarcastic or that this wasn't a giant elaborate joke. Having said that, the tone of the comments to this point seem generally cynical, so I will counter this trend and offer congratulations to the fortunate couple. All the best in your new life together!

Although I do have to say that Bob responds well to potentially awkward questions... (Bob's brain: "Danger! Danger! Must... tread... carefuly...")

Shake the haters off Miss Althouse. A ridiculous amount of people just can't stand seeing two people get together and fall in love. It doesn't at all matter what the haters have to say about the how, it only matters what you two say, and how you two feel. I'm very happy for you.

I want to clarify for anyone who is distressed by "Althouse haters", I'm as glad Ann Althouse found a partner and is getting married as I possibly could be, given that I have no connection to or interest in her - and am put off by the narcissism and shallowness of her public persona. I'm pro-love and pro-marriage on general principle. My distaste for her is based on the unhinged, uninformed crap she spouted regarding Obama's performance to date. Her opinions on politics have proven to be near worthless whenever I've been subjected to them. Why she's on Bloggingheads is a mystery. Of course it's my fault that I listened to a couple of the segments of this diavlog. I also have to say that I loved Gran Torino, so I clicked on her commentary and found it as lacking in substance and useful insight as when she slings opinions that I fundamentally disagree with. Among other things she's a bore. And evidently, based on her Gran Torino comments, she's a small-bore bore.

This is what I mean about troll bait. Althouse has said she thinks of herself as a performance artists, winding up the squares and the do-gooders. Then when people respond to it, she wigs out and throws a tantrum. It's all part of the act. Yeah, well, that's bullshit, and it's not ungracious or uncharitable to call her on it. Anyway, I hope the real Althouse and her guy have a happy life. Internet Althouse, I could give a shit.

We can only hope that she will be a happy, submissive wife and stay home, away from BHTV....

Sweet! Nice use of my quote, Bob. Let it be noted that Ann did not refute the assertion of being on drugs or having an over-inflated ego. PS Ezra, corrected himself by pointing out the factual that Ann's blog has a disproportionate amount of anti-semitic comments (especially about him) compared to most other blogs.

"Ann accuses Obama of excessive frivolity." That just shot down any possibility for me of watching this garbage.

I wish the couple all the best. That said (sincerely)--this was a waste of a diavlog. The more private Althouse remains, the better. May she see the light and retire as a public figure, and enjoy it.

"Ezra, corrected himself by pointing out the factual that Ann's blog has a disproportionate amount of anti-semitic comments (especially about him) compared to most other blogs." Ezra did not correct himself on Twitter, the place where he made the false statement about me. In Twitter, I am slimed with no correction, even though I've emailed and asked for a correction (and an apology) in Twitter. And on his blog, where he did post about it, he failed to give a straightforward apology and instead only conceded that I was right about one point. I only had one point. So I was completely right, and I don't appreciate the hedging. I want him to step up and apologize. He also failed to acknowledge that the 2 commenters who were a problem were strongly opposed by many other commenters. And he failed to recognize that one of the 2 commenters was someone who was pushing the satire envelope. A man with a decent sense of humor/honor would have been clear about all that. So I am not satisfied with Ezra's response. Moreover, his attack on me just happened to come right after I did a post about his JournoList, so it had an unpleasant retaliatory

Quoting Ann Althouse: "Ezra, corrected himself by pointing out the factual that Ann's blog has a disproportionate amount of anti-semitic comments (especially about him) compared to most other blogs."

Ezra did not correct himself on Twitter, the place where he made the false statement about me. In Twitter, I am slimed with no correction, even though I've emailed and asked for a correction (and an apology) in Twitter.

And on his blog, where he did post about it, he failed to give a straightforward apology and instead only conceded that I was right about one point. I only had one point. So I was completely right, and I don't appreciate the hedging. I want him to step up and apologize.

He also failed to acknowledge that the 2 commenters who were a problem were strongly opposed by many other commenters. And he failed to recognize that one of the 2 commenters was someone who was pushing the satire envelope. A man with a decent sense of humor/honor would have been clear about all that.

So I am not satisfied with Ezra's response. Moreover, his attack on me just happened to come right after I did a post about his JournoList, so it had an unpleasant retaliatory

ann, i think you should wait a couple of years for the romantic version of love to wear off before getting married. what's the point of acting so soon?

Quoting Ann Althouse: . What motivated him?

Maybe the desire to be a provocateur... like you. Not likely. Or maybe just a desire to be kissed more frequently on the lips (who doesn't like that?) Who knows, who cares? They are all just words. I saw your lips moving and I heard Rush Limbo's words coming out. What does it all mean?

Quoting AemJeff: "In Twitter I am slimed..." So Twitter is an alternate universe whose members are unreachable by postings on other fora? Ezra's blog is not exactly obscure. You're just making up it up as you go along, just to keep this stupid, manufactured, self-serving tiff alive, aren't you?

How would you feel if you were accused of anti-Semitism in public, asshole?

Quoting JoeK: How would you feel if you were accused of anti-Semitism in public, asshole?

It won't happen in this lifetime, sweetie.

Quoting AemJeff: It won't happen in this lifetime, sweetie.

So you imply Althouse was accused with a good reason.

Quoting JoeK: So you imply Althouse was accused with a good reason.

Tell me what accusation was directed at Althouse.

Quoting AemJeff: Tell me what accusation was directed at Althouse.

That she runs a blog crawling with anti-Semits, from which follows more, but that false accusation is enough.

Quoting JoeK: That she runs a blog crawling with anti-Semits, from which follows more, but that false accusation is enough.

You embellish the truth and imply things not in evidence. Ezra Klein did not accuse Ann Althouse of anything. He stated an observation about the content of comments on her blog. The open question is the degree of truth in that observation.

First, I'd like to congratulate Althouse on publicly proclaiming her love for and devotion to mead. You've taken the first step to a better life, Ann. I'm in favor of a BH wedding. To keep it relevant they should take periodic breaks in the ceremony to argue policy, though. Bonus points if the groom works "Jessica Valenti breast controversy" into his vows. I was suspicious when Althouse started talking about how, during an emergency, it's inappropriate to "giggle" or joke around and that there's the danger of the expansion of government power. Both times she made the comparison to how Bush acted in the aftermath of 9/11, and both times it was VERY hard for me to imagine Althouse ever actually raising those criticisms against Bush any time before it could be used as a club to bludgeon the left hemi-blogosphere. Towards the end of the diavlog Althouse said something I found interesting. She claimed that Obama's affable joking manner is similar to how other leaders acted when they were expanding their power or curtailing rights. Is that true? AFAIK they mostly take themselves pretty seriously as mythical heroes, e.g. the WW2 fascists and DPRK's Kim

Quoting pampl: First, I'd like to congratulate Althouse on publicly proclaiming her love for and devotion to mead.

mead 1 |mēd|
noun chiefly historical
an alcoholic drink of fermented honey and water. The joke is on us, I guess.

"I've...asked for a correction (and an apology) in Twitter." She really loves this shit. Kind of sad.

I think Ezra was perfectly clear:

Althouse is right on one point: She does not have "a lot" anti-Semitic commenters. Rather, she has "a lot" of anti Semitic comments in threads about me. I had been looking at comments rather than attaching them to names. So for that misrepresentation, I apologize (emphasis added). And, in general, I don't think she needs to remove any of those comments or police threads. Comment sections are what they are. But one thing they often are is unnerving to their subjects.

As a reader of many blogs, there's no way to avoid seeing the occasional comments of nastiness regarding race, gender, ethnicity. It's part of the game. But looking at the posts that Ezra linked to, I was surprised at how many of them there were in your comments section. I don't know if everyone else has stricter policing standards in their comments section, but the places I frequent: Bloggingheads, Yglesias, Ezra, Alterman, TNC, LG&M, etc. I have never seen threads with such a high-concentration of borderline anti-semitic comments, even going to the creepy level of posting information about Ezra's family. If you are proud to be the person who takes a more-or-less anything goes policy with regards to your comments section, that's your prerogative. But with

Quoting graz: Maybe the desire to be a provocateur... like you. Not likely.
Or maybe just a desire to be kissed more frequently on the lips (who doesn't like that?) Who knows, who cares? They are all just words. I saw your lips moving and I heard Rush Limbo's words coming out. What does it all mean?

Indeed. Of all the dialogues I have listened to on BHTV this one must be the most inane. Love makes fools of us all.

...why Althouse remains on the roster of BHTV vloggers. The only time I'll watch an Althouse session is when Bob or someone else I feel has important things to say is the other blogginghead. Perhaps Bob is trying to run up his site hit count by booking the althouse, knowing that her cadre of commenters will follow her here.
While I wish her and her partner well, I'd also wish that she not return to BHTV.

Ezra Klein should have been more mature and just not have twittered what he tweeted. You just don't go around and imply antisemitism or racism whenever you're a bit hot under the collar. It was unprofessional, I think. Ezra is better than that.

Seconded. While I actually do like listening to Wright on the useless issues of the day (in what circumstances should the president of the United States laugh, etc.) I think that if Althouse is going to be on BHTV, she needs to be paired with someone who's equally mindlessly partisan. Listening to her attacking Obama for trying to be likable instead of "getting things done", or suggesting that he's going to usher in some sort of era of affable totalitarianism, is just painful. Aren't these exactly the same accusations that were thrown at Bush? I don't follow her blog, so I don't know if she was equally harsh on Bush for his "Heh heh -- want some wood?" type comments, or on the things he did with regards to civil liberties, but I somehow doubt it. It seems like the question Wright is trying to ask Althouse in that section is whether the things Obama might do (or has already done) after the economic collapse threaten economic liberty the same way the things Bush did after 9/11 threatened civil liberties. I mean, personally, I don't know that economic liberty is as important to society as civil liberty

I agree that Ezra should have been more prudent. I think that's one of the problems with Tweeting. Not much room for consideration before you throw something out there. At the same time, Althouse says that her son is "off limits" in comments, but Ezra's family apparently is not. I think if people on Ann's site are making borderline anti-semitic comments on threads about Ezra, including discussions of his family, and Ann allows it, he has every right to be disturbed by it and point it out. Which is precisely what happened. Speaking of professionalism: Ann also could have jumped into the comments section (something that she has little hesitation to do here when she is the subject of conversation) and voice her disapproval of those types of offensive comments, even without censorship. You know the way Bob does when people here start getting out of line. But she didn't. That's her choice. She's willing to accept the +'s of what she feels is a great comments section, but then feels it's unfair to be associated with the -'s when they say ignorant shit and she let's it slide. Again, you can't have it both

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I agree that Ezra should have been more prudent. I think that's one of the problems with Tweeting. Not much room for consideration before you throw something out there. At the same time, Althouse says that her son is "off limits" in comments, but Ezra's family apparently is not. I think if people on Ann's site are making borderline anti-semitic comments on threads about Ezra, including discussions of his family, and Ann allows it, he has every right to be disturbed by it and point it out. Which is precisely what happened.

Speaking of professionalism: Ann also could have jumped into the comments section (something that she has little hesitation to do here when she is the subject of conversation) and voice her disapproval of those types of offensive comments, even without censorship. You know the way Bob does when people here start getting out of line. But she didn't. That's her choice.

She's willing to accept the +'s of what she feels is a great comments section, but then feels it's unfair to be associated with the -'s when they say ignorant shit and she let's it slide. Again, you can't have it both

Oh, if I could only find someone exactly like Ann, then woo her with unending PDAs and marry her . . . and make her life as miserable as I did my first wife's. Oh I feel so guilty. Forgive me, Bob. Someone stop me before I insult again. I can't believe I'm saying this but, where is Mickey Kaus when we really need him?

You are probably right, but instead of smearing Althouse by implication, he should have either not tweeted, or qualified himself by tweeting that Althouse is clearly not a anti-semite, but a few commenters step over the line. Althouse can't be blamed for all that is written in her comments section. It is not even her responsibility to shut people up. All kinds of people post there and it is an anything goes comment section. That says absolutely nothing about her own views and it shouldn't. What Bob Wright does or what other bloggers do doesn't matter. Like you said though, Ezra should have been more prudent.

Quoting mmacklem: I hadn't heard about any of these events before this diavlog, but I have to say that I was slightly alarmed at myself in terms of how long into the diavlog I was finally convinced that these two were not being sarcastic or that this wasn't a giant elaborate joke.

Ditto: I could not believe they were serious. I mean, what a stunningly asinine diavlog! A full thirty minutes devoted to discussing Ann's bizarre cyber romance - not exactly Must See BH.TV. On the other hand: if commenters really do end up marrying bloggers, perhaps I do have a chance with Michelle Goldberg . . .?

Quoting Winspur: "Ann accuses Obama of excessive frivolity."

Correction: Nikkibong accuses Ann of excessive frivolity.

Quoting nikkibong: Correction: Nikkibong accuses Ann of excessive frivolity.

Addendum: Bob started it...

Quoting Lyle: You are probably right, but instead of smearing Althouse by implication, he should have either not tweeted, or qualified himself by tweeting that Althouse is clearly not a anti-semite, but a few commenters step over the line. Althouse can't be blamed for all that is written in her comments section. It is not even her responsibility to shut people up. All kinds of people post there and it is an anything goes comment section. That says absolutely nothing about her own views and it shouldn't. What Bob Wright does or what other bloggers do doesn't matter.

Like you said though, Ezra should have been more prudent.

If Althouse can't be blamed for what's in her comments section then what Klein wrote wasn't a smear at all. He said nothing about Althouse, only "Ann Althouse sure has a lot of anti-semitic commenters". If you think he should have been more nuanced then I think your problem is really with the tweet format in general.

Guess I'll have to start commenting here:
http://thegarance.com/
;-)

Does Gisele Bundchen have a blog?

Ann, it's obvious you are infatuated or in love with Mead but what is the rush? From what I gather you two have not spent that much time together. Also, I don't think he will be able to remain anonymous like Dolly Parton's husband which I didn't even know she had. For your benefit you've been to the well before and have some experience with marriage. So, you know what you are getting in to. However, this does seem a little rash. John

pampl, Klein meant it as a sly put down to counter her comments on Klein's Journolist. It was definitely a smear. It would be like Althouse saying, "hey, everyone, look at all those pinko-communist posts over at Ezra Klein's blog". It's unprofessional and uncalled for in my opinion. Klein should be a bigger man about it in my opinion.

Quoting Lyle: pampl,

Klein meant it as a sly put down to counter her comments on Klein's Journolist. It was definitely a smear. ...

Really? You're confident that your third-party exegesis of Ezra's tweets is definitive? We should turn to Lyle when Ezra writes, to divine what Ezra really means when he writes something? Why should we share this strange confidence of yours?

Quoting brucds: "as Mark Steyn said on the Rush Limbaugh show...

Holy crap ! Althouse really is as full of crap as I've always assumed - a know-nothing drivel-monger.

Yeah, that was telling. Everything she said about Obama and "people are worried" and "people feel" was straight from those sources. This either says something about her lack of intelligence or the susceptibility of self-centered people to the hate-mongers of AM radio. Or probably, in her case, both.

Quoting Ann Althouse: [...]

I don't know who you think you're kidding with this, Ann. It's obvious that you care about two things and only two things: trawling the Internet looking for reasons to take offense and keeping controversies alive to draw attention to yourself.

I suppose I won't worry about this trend until someone tries to assassinate Bob Wright to impress Yves Smith.

Bob's line "It used to take me about a 6-pack of beer before I could make eye contact with a woman" was classic, though.

I hate to jinx it, but I'm relieved this thread hasn't exploded in insanity. *fingers crossed*

I think he smeared her, you and others don't. I think we just disagree.

Quoting claymisher: I hate to jinx it, but I'm relieved this thread hasn't exploded in insanity. *fingers crossed*

I don't think it will. Althouse isn't worth the effort anymore, if she ever was. Also, pretty much everyone who doesn't like her has figured out she thrives on the attention, so that's another reason to say: why bother?

... would Mickey now be married?

deep thoughts, otto. my laugh out loud moment of the night.

I'm sorry but Ann Althouse is Rush Limbaugh in a dress. This is the second time I've heard her say that she voted for Obama. I really wonder whether or not that's true. But this is not about liking or not liking Obama, it's about whether we should expect a tenured law prefessor to engage in thoughtful analysis or simply spout mindless garbage based on nothing at all. Her 'speculation' that Obama will charm us into some sort of dictatorship (she barely avoided the term "fascist" that the loony right has been using recently) is so absolutely rotten and disgusting that I have lost whatever tiny respect I once had for her.

Lyle: It would be like Althouse saying, "hey, everyone, look at all those pinko-communist posts over at Ezra Klein's blog" No it wouldn't. That's an absurd analogy that indicates you're not giving this even a modicum of serious thought. Klein was attacked, by name, as a Jew in Althouse's comments section. Apparently by several people. That's entirely different in eliciting a reaction by the person attacked than some idle hyperbolic characterization of the political cast of a blog's comments thread. Totally different.

She supports gay marriage, i.e., she has no problem with men who like to stick their penis' in other men or if they live together under the law.

Quoting Lyle: She supports gay marriage, i.e., she has no problem with men who like to stick their penis' in other men living together under the law.

What did that have to do with what Legin said? You really are strangely obsessed with this aspect of Althouse, aren't you?

Klein's comments implied that Althouse was an anti-semite because she did nothing about those comments. Klein also failed to mention that those 2 commenters got as Althouse calls it, push back, from many other commenters. Just because Ann Althouse allows people to make bigoted comments does not also mean she is a bigot. Klein's remark was immature (not prudent as uncle ebeneezer wrote), in my opinion. Klein and his supporters should think harder about what he said and what was meant by it.

Quoting Lyle: Klein's comments implied that Althouse was an anti-semite because she did nothing about those comments. Klein also failed to mention that those 2 commenters got as Althouse calls it, push back, from many other commenters. Just because Ann Althouse allows people to make bigoted comments does not also mean she is a bigot.

Klein's remark was immature (not prudent as uncle ebeneezer wrote), in my opinion. Klein and his supporters should think harder about what he said and what was meant by it.

Link to Ezra calling Althouse a bigot, please.

Legin probably agrees with Ann Althouse on gay marriage. I'm showing him that they are like minded on at least one issue.

I didn't say he called her a bigot. I said he implied she's an anti-semite, i.e., a bigot.

Quoting Lyle: I didn't say he called her a bigot. I said he implied she's an anti-semite, i.e., a bigot.

That's not a link, Lyle, it's a quibble. The question is can you demonstrate that what you're saying is true, or are you still just making it up?

Ah... we all know what Ezra Klein wrote, and we all know what Ann Althouse took issue with. One can either go to Klein's blog or Althouse's blog and judge for themselves. And if I'm making it up, I guess Ann Althouse is making it up as well. Again, I believe he implied that she is anti-semite, i.e., a bigot. Now he doesn't actually believe she's an anti-semite, but he did mean to smear her by throwing the word anti-semite in her blog's general direction.

Quoting Lyle: Legin probably agrees with Ann Althouse on gay marriage. I'm showing him that they are like minded on at least one issue.

You think maybe Legin missed this?

Quoting Lyle: Ann Althouse supports gay marriage by the way...

Or this?

Quoting Lyle: Why does she support gay marriage if she's a "right-winger"?

Or this?

Quoting Lyle: You also forget that Ann Althouse supports gay marriage.

Quoting Lyle: ...I guess Ann Althouse is making it up as well.
...

We used to call that a tautology in logic class.

Yeah, he might have.

Quoting Lyle: Yeah, he might have.

Barney Frank has a word for you.

Homophobe? I'm comfortable with men giving him fellatio. He can get married too if he wants. It's amazing how desperate some people are to call others names.

How could Ezra point out the anti-semitic nature of the comments on Althouse's blog without using the phrase "anti-semitic" and without people like you immediately conflating that with "implying she's anti-semitic?" It sounds like the only thing you would be happy with would be Ezra not saying anything. Besides, we all know that Ezra is anti-semitic and a self-hating jew (according to the Marty Peretz's of the world) for his anti-Israel statements. So who better to point out an anti-semitic comment than one of the juicebox mafia? Perhaps Ezra should have noted that "Ann Althouse pals around with anti-semites!"

Quoting Lyle: Homophobe?

I'm comfortable with men giving him fellatio. He can get married too if he wants.

It's amazing how desperate some people are to call others names.

No... Homophiliac was what I had in mind.

Quoting Lyle: And if I'm making it up, I guess Ann Althouse is making it up as well.

Bingo.

First, congratulations Ann! I hope you and Mead much happiness. On women and money: Women are attracted to men with wealth just as men are attracted to women of beauty. I’d say the men have an advantage here for the obvious reason that wealth can be attained but beauty cannot, even in this age of plastic surgery. I’m often amazed at the bitterness of men over this issue while they themselves never seem to reflect on their own judgment and attitudes of women’s physical attributes and their selection process. In anycase, the good news is that for the vast majority of people, money and beauty are not the only drivers of attraction and I think most of us subconsciously weigh people’s various attributes and come to a conclusion, again subconsciously. For instance, a woman might reject a very wealthy man because his jerk factor or unattractivenesss (not always physical) is so high that it’s hard to overcome the wealth. Same thing for a man. Over the years I’ve peripherally been exposed to this kind of bitterness from men regarding women from overhearing conversations at work or through second

Lemon, I would agree that wealth/beauty are roughly flip-sides of the coin to women/men respectively and that for most people out there, they are just one factor to be considered. But I would also say that the level of importance of these attributes are pretty extremely weighted versus the rest of the whole. I can't tell you how many men I know who have continued to date a girl who treats them like crap solely because she's really hot, when there are any number of girls out there with less attractive genes, who would be a much better match for their personality, intelligence, beliefs etc. "Yeah but she's really hot" is a pretty common refrain guys use when talking about women whose personalities aren't of the highest order. And I'm talking about some of the LEAST shallow guys. That doesn't even account for the kindof frat-boy, show-us-your-t**s type choads that I usually don't hang with. Same goes for women. I can't tell you how many women I know who place an over-emphasis on the amount of resources or status etc. that a guy happens to posses. That's not to say that that is ALL they're attracted

"People like me"... what does that mean? I agreed with what you originally said... that Klein was not prudent. He should have nothing or qualified what he said. Althouse shouldn't be judged by some random anti-semite comments on her blog. She's not an anti-semite clearly, and random commenters aren't a comment on her blog or her.

A few comments on a very weird exchange that was fun and different, as these things go, until it got lousy with all the soft headed, alarmist vapidity about Obama seizing power through the means of his economic plans while pretending to be an affable, regular guy. I liked the talk, though none of it new or original, on the differences between meeting someone face to face and corresponding with them short of meeting them--the latter, a definite and overwhelming thing in the wired world, to be sure. It reminded me of a small piece by Sartre, I think from Being And Nothingness, the whole of which I don’t pretend to have read, in which he talks about writing love letters to “Annie”. That, love letters, presenting only your written self, can be, though not necessarily, an exercise in bad faith, because you present a manipulated semblance of yourself, and avoid the concrete and contingent drama of face to face, flesh and blood meetings, where, usually, one is exposed, uncontrollably, warts and all, the "uncontrollably" also referring to the reaction of the other. I have had growing mixed feelings about Althouse, as she likes to be called, with the negative gaining ground on the positive. But from this

Quoting Lyle: "People like me"... what does that mean?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: How could Ezra point out the anti-semitic nature of the comments on Althouse's blog without using the phrase "anti-semitic" and without people like you immediately conflating that with "implying she's anti-semitic?"

It seems self-evident, doesn't it? People who conflate Ezra pointing out the anti-Semitic nature of comments on Althouse's blog with "implying she's anti-semitic"

I hope you don't mean that as a put down... cause I guess that would make you a homophobe.

Exactly. Thank you Jeff. No matter what implication you perceive, there's a disproportionate amount of anti-semitic comments on her blog, on threads where the subject is Ezra Klein. Which, I think takes us precisely back to exactly what Ezra was pointing out.

Quoting basman: [...]

If I thought that what you wrote here was a complete summary, I'd probably agree with your conclusion. There's something sort of appealing about Althouse, at least at relatively shallow levels of exposure. But, there's her habit of aggressive self-aggrandizement without regard for its cost to others - somebody complaining about being the personal subject of direct anti-Semitic commentary on her blog is accused of "smearing" her! Somebody else brings up a perfectly legitimate controversy regarding her in an admirably neutral way, and she responds with a humiliating, public tirade - then brags: "I've gone viral!" when the disgusting spectacle starts getting an obscene level of exposure. She picks fights with the apparently deliberate aim of drawing attention to herself. Certainly, she didn't invent this game, but her lack of originality in that regard is not a redemptive quality.

Interesting post IB. Though I know some who would argue this:

does not make a complete exhibition of herself

;-)

Oh... I'd argue with your "disproportionate amount" point. There were like 2, and other commenters went after them for their comments.

p.s. I'd like to add one comment that I forgot to make originally, but meant to. I thought it was Althouse at her most excellent, whether from the standpoint of analysis or from the standpoint of sensibility--presuming that that distinction holds some clarifying water here--when she emphasized powerfully the sheer writerliness of the blogging/posting experience. I, in fact, was moved by the urgency, significance and possibilities for self realization she conferred on the act of writing, for how, for some--myself included--writing can be an emotional and intellectual pleasure of such intense proportion and magnitude, comparable, I'd imagine, to a great golf game, a great swoop down the ski slopes, and other abiding, physical pleasure-filled experiences come from efforts that are not necessarily done easily and so often produce dross. What other *head* has shown the *sensibility* to speak about writerliness in such passionate and telling terms? None that I have so far seen and heard here as an occasional visitor to these parts. Itzik Basman

Dude, you've been front-paged over at Althouse.

Quoting AemJeff: Dude, you've been front-paged over at Althouse.

Dude, true that, and cool that, at that. Thanks for the good word on the good word. Itzik Basman

Way to go Basman. Hopefully her commentors will treat you "better than Ezra."

Quoting basman: p.s.

I'd like to add one comment that I forgot to make originally, but meant to.

I thought it was Althouse at her most excellent, whether from the standpoint of analysis or from the standpoint of sensibility--presuming that that distinction holds some clarifying water here--when she emphasized powerfully the sheer writerliness of the blogging/posting experience.

I, in fact, was moved by the urgency, significance and possibilities for self realization she conferred on the act of writing, for how, for some--myself included--writing can be an emotional and intellectual pleasure of such intense proportion and magnitude, comparable, I'd imagine, to a great golf game, a great swoop down the ski slopes, and other abiding, physical pleasure-filled experiences come from efforts that are not necessarily done easily and so often produce dross.

What other *head* has shown the *sensibility* to speak about writerliness in such passionate and telling terms?

None that I have so far seen and heard here as an occasional visitor to these parts.

Itzik Basman

*Probably* no other *head* has shown this for good reason. Is there anything duller than writers talking about writing? And I am a big fan of Booknotes, where more than how the process makes you feel

Quoting basman: Dude, true that, and cool that, at that.

Thanks for the good word on the good word.

Itzik Basman

Like, enjoy, man!

Graz, thanks for your comments. I could care less about Althouse's favour or disfavour. She's at a minimum provocative and I tried my brief hand at making some sense of that. She is the first person I have seen/heard here talking about the *writing* component of blogging and posting and the passion and self expression writing involves for some people drawn to it. (If someone else has, I'd like to check that out.) Book Notes, which I once in a while watch/listen to, is fine, but tends to be stodgy and snooze inducing, I find. And that's one of Althouse's strengths; she may be self involved, but because she is so intensely personal and undetached in her comments, they are engaging. But I think I have had enough of talking about her. Itzik Basman

Ann Althouse is to older, conservative blog obsessives what the only girl at the comic book store was to me at age 17. Except she really enjoys the attention.

you asking anyone else to have a "sense of shame" or "honor" is absolutely hysterical. keep up the comedy ms. Kettle

usually people that say stuff like this are trying to have their homo-erotic thrills without actually acknowledging their sexuality. good luck coming to terms with that, Lyle

Quoting Lyle: I hope you don't mean that as a put down... cause I guess that would make you a homophobe.

Nope, just reveling in your appreciation for "man parts."

Quoting DoctorMoney: Ann Althouse is to older, conservative blog obsessives what the only girl at the comic book store was to me at age 17.

Except she really enjoys the attention.

That was brutal.

Bingo!!!! I'm afraid I'm too young to get into it. It makes me wonder how much leeway I give to women who I do think are attractive - because people like basman above seem so obviously intelligent yet completely beguiled by Ms. Althouse. the most telling comment she made was when she was talking about how her new love could be happily reading her blog downstairs while she is upstairs writing it. nothing so wonderful as a live in sycophant, i guess.

@popcorn The upstairs/downstairs detail came from your imagination, not my life. If you don't know the pleasure of 2 persons with laptops sitting together at a table (or in bed), picture it.

Though it probably goes without saying, I'll say it anyway. Dr$ is the winner!!!

Wow- an Althouse statement I agree with!!! "just ask her out" yes. Exactly.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Ann Althouse is to older, conservative blog obsessives what the only girl at the comic book store was to me at age 17.

Except she really enjoys the attention.

A few, I trust, last words. Except for the last quoted sentence what precedes it is nonsense. I, on balance, like Althouse. Bob Wright clearly likes her. Liking her so can only come across as an "obsession" to someone so antipathetic to her, that any balanced appraisal of her, which mine was I'd contend, commenting, accurately or not, on what I think are her strengths and weaknesses, is unacceptable and must derisively be reduced to a virtual pathology--"obsession", of someone aged--"older", and "conservative", which I hardly am; and she must be derided and dimissed by the kind of abuse hurled at her on this thread, and quite pathetically so, I might add. So who amongst here is near to being obsessed: someone who, on balance, enjoys her and says so, trying in an evauative way to say why; or someone who despises here but does not have the strength simply to ignore her, but, must, rather, like a moth to a flame, go out of his way, and anonymously at that, to demean and attack her, I ask? And let the unnamed identify themselves, so we know

it was the image in my mind when @minute 22, you were talking about how you don't want some "needy living being" in your life, and then stated that your boyfriend would be ok because "he needs me to write the blog". imagery aside, i thought it all sounded a bit narcissistic and icky. have a good day, and good luck with your relationship.

Itzik, lighten up. Althouse likes to be provocative. Well you know what happens when you provoke, you get a reaction. I think all her critics here have been fairly good about explaining why we react the way we do. With the "performances" she gives, she's an easy target for satire and/or more meaningful criticism. That just goes with the territory. She craves attention far more openly than anyone else who appears here at Bloggingheads. Attention is what she gets. And then her cheerleaders all suffer fuaxtrage at the unfair attacks on her. I suffer no obsession with AA. If she didn't swing by here once in awhile, she wouldn't even be on my radar. (By the way, just so you knw where I'm coming from, my first introduction of AA was when she came here and threw a temper tantrum at Garrance Franke-Ruta which was just downright rude and immature, and definitely soured my opinion of her. Since then, I've enjoyed a couple of her visits, but episodes like this recent fauxtrage at Ezra Klein just reinforces my notion that she and her fans always have their victim cards at the ready.) And while you might

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Itzik, lighten up...But I agree that this has been far more words on AA than she deserves.

On these points I will listen to my uncle. Itzik Basman

Is this a put down? What's wrong with being gay?

How about putting Althouse and Kaus together? They're both tedious permatrolls. Let them cancel each other out.

Typical Althouse (via Roy Edroso):

ADDED: Actually, the blogger Jesse Taylor looks like this. You can do your own snark. I'm living on love.

Picks an online enemy, invites her commenters to trash his picture, and will no doubt hit the fauxtrage button the instant anyone says anything about the inevitable stream of dipshittery that will flow from her minions. Gutless hag. ([Added] Cross-posted at the sewer.)

Basman stands up to the Bloggingheads Boys' Club... until he doesn't. It's Saturday, guys. Try asking someone out. And kiss in public. Do it until you don't hate me anymore.

Quoting Ann Althouse: Basman stands up to the Bloggingheads Boys' Club... until he doesn't.

It's Saturday, guys. Try asking someone out. And kiss in public. Do it until you don't hate me anymore.

Shorter Ann Althouse:

Like most thirteen-year-olds, I believe that I'm the only one in the world who knows what it feels like to have a crush.

No, "bj." I'm one of several in the world who think you're not getting enough. And I want you to get some, really. I'm trying to help people.

Quoting Ann Althouse: No, "bj." I'm one of several in the world who think you're not getting enough. And I want you to get some, really. I'm trying to help people.

The only way you could help people is by getting permanent cases of laryngitis and arthritis.

Quoting Ann Althouse: Basman stands up to the Bloggingheads Boys' Club... until he doesn't.

It's Saturday, guys. Try asking someone out. And kiss in public. Do it until you don't hate me anymore.

Good golly, Ann. Basman's never exhibited the slightest tendency to to be swayed by other express opinions on this site. He said what he said for his own reasons which he seemed to articulate pretty clearly. You've an odd way of looking for allies. And "hate?" I think a lot of people would be far less hostile if you didn't regularly erupt as a bully.

"Picks an online enemy, invites her commenters to trash his picture, and will no doubt hit the fauxtrage button the instant anyone says anything about the inevitable stream of dipshittery that will flow from her minions." That's mighty deceptive. Jesse Taylor chose to write a post mocking my announcement of my engagement. That caused me to wonder what he looked like — on a theory similar to the one I just stated about you "bj." Taylor took a mean-spirited, gratuitous swipe against me. My response was to point to a picture of him, which, amusingly, his own co-blogger, Amanda Marcotte, immediately called "ugly." Add it up. What makes men so hostile to women? Again, I am trying to help. Reflect. I'm not going to spell it all out. I prompt and stimulate thinking. That's my approach, which Basman almost gets. Raise your game, "bj." You might be smart enough to play chez Althouse, but you have got to try much harder. Get out of the boys' club and see if you have what it takes. Don't be a pussy.

ATTENTION!!! ATTENTION!!! High level experts in diplomacy are needed to avert major BHtv- world conflict!!!

Quoting Ann Althouse: ...I'm not going to spell it all out. I prompt and stimulate thinking...

And my immediate thought was______________ (fill 'er in)

The front paging continues, though you don't get mentioned by name. Althouse posting about Althouse posting about Althouse.

I think I'm a little dizzy.

Quoting Ann Althouse: "Picks an online enemy, invites her commenters to trash his picture, and will no doubt hit the fauxtrage button the instant anyone says anything about the inevitable stream of dipshittery that will flow from her minions."

That's mighty deceptive. Jesse Taylor chose to write a post mocking my announcement of my engagement.

Hey, if you're going to live out your personal life online, you're fair game for mockery. You can't make it all about you, you, you, and then demand that everyone else in the world bite his or her tongue. Same as anything else published -- if you're going to put it out there, you have to expect reactions. And I'm sorry this comes as such a shock to you, but not everyone is cut from the same fawning cloth as your little klatch of regular commenters.

Quoting Ann Althouse: That caused me to wonder what he looked like — on a theory similar to the one I just stated about you "bj."

No matter how many times you try to worm this information out of me, Ann, you're not going to get it. Some of us have the sense to keep our own relationships

Quoting AemJeff: The front paging continues, though you don't get mentioned by name. Althouse posting about Althouse posting about Althouse.

I think I'm a little dizzy.

Hilarious. What makes it even better is thinking of the vapors that Ann has whenever she gets alluded to somewhere online, without being explicitly named and linked to. You think that was a call to action for her minions? Should we expect blistering attacks from Sgt. York and rcocean, posthaste? [Added] Just checked the comments over there. Looks like the rallying cry of WOLVERINES!!!1! failed. They appear to be content to huddle together in their little burrow and squeak at each other. Apparently, this forum is too hard to figure out how to post on, and it also appears they some of them had scarifying experiences in high school with the tough guys from ... the Chess Club. I am not making this up. I'd say "checkmate," but Althouse would probably call me a sexist. And tell me to sharpen up.

Wasn't that long ago that Althouse's groupies would flood her threads and keep them alive forever. Now she's reduced to doing it herself. Pathetic. Keefe, come on, don't feed the troll.

Quoting claymisher: Wasn't that long ago that Althouse's groupies would flood her threads and keep them alive forever. Now she's reduced to doing it herself. Pathetic.

Keefe, come on, don't feed the troll.

All right. Point taken.

"Hey, if you're going to live out your personal life online, you're fair game for mockery." It's fine to mock me but the mockery is then subject to mockery. If a nerdy blogger who looks like he might have trouble attracting a woman chooses to mock a woman who has announced her engagement, he is an open target. On what theory should I not smack this boy who was asking for it? I was damned gentle under the circumstances. I could have shredded him, and he would have richly deserved it. As for me writing about myself or writing from a personal perspective, I am a blogger. What part of that don't you understand? These objections to my blogging that add up to nothing more than objections to blogging are perfectly inane. You want to know what blogging is, what blogging is supposed to be? Read my blog and learn. And then come back, bow down... and apologize! Abjectly! Like Basman on a good day.

"Wasn't that long ago that Althouse's groupies would flood her threads and keep them alive forever." They have more fun talking about this thread chez Althouse, for many reasons. In this diavlog, Bob and I talk about the difference between bhtv comment threads and Althouse comments threads. I think the comparison between this thread and the one over there pretty much makes my point that my comments are far superior -- except to the extent that my participation in this thread adds hilarity, sharp edge, and glamour.

Quoting Ann Althouse: "Hey, if you're going to live out your personal life online, you're fair game for mockery."

It's fine to mock me but the mockery is then subject to mockery.

That's not what I originally called you out on. Here's what I said:

Quoting bjkeefe: Typical Althouse (via Roy Edroso):

ADDED: Actually, the blogger Jesse Taylor looks like this. You can do your own snark. I'm living on love.

Picks an online enemy, invites her commenters to trash his picture, and will no doubt hit the fauxtrage button the instant anyone says anything about the inevitable stream of dipshittery that will flow from her minions.

Gutless hag.

That is, you weren't mocking him. You avoided doing it yourself, and instead egged on your puerile commenters, so that you could insult him by proxy while disavowing responsibility. Pretty much the same way you dealt with Ezra Klein. And now that you're over here, I see my prediction was right. Could you be a little less obvious about your thirst for hits, though?

Quoting Ann Althouse: As for me writing about myself or writing from a personal perspective ...

Ugh. Even the quote mechanism cannot bear to hear you talking about yourself talking about blogging.

Quoting Ann Althouse: And then come back, bow down... and

Quoting Ann Althouse: ... my participation in this thread adds hilarity ...

Nice to end on something we can agree on, although I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Amanda Marcotte came to my comments section -- http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-annals-of-anti-althousiana.html#c4622305697689142427" -- and said: "If you think his irritation is about 'sensitivity', then you're really just proving all accusations that people who hang out in comments here on a regular basis do so because their minds were turned to pudding years ago. It's hilarious how you decided Jesse was ugly, probably without even looking at the link, because he must be or else you'll have to face the fact that you're a dark, withered soul who reads Ann Althouse. But there are more choices than "pretend liberals are ugly" and "realize that you are an irredeemably hateful person". You could, you know, try not to suck so much." I never said "ugly." That was her word. She spoke her opinion there, by hilarious accident. We are still giggling chez Althouse. I just thought he looked nerdy, like one of those lonely guys on the internet that Bob and I talk about in the diavlog. Like you, perhaps, "bj." Over in my comments, I responded Amanda quickly: "I didn't say 'ugly.' You did. I will own up to creating the conditions that caused you to blurt out your opinion of him. I hope he's appropriately pissed off at you. I was just

(Posted in Althouse's comments, and crossposted here on Brendan's suggestion) Bob Wright has asked, more than once, that bh.tv forum posters should be more civil in their comments, particularly those directed to the Heads. It only takes a few commenters (or even one, if he's prolific) to set the tone of any forum. Sort the bh.tv members list by number of posts, and note that bjkeefe has made about four times as many posts as has the next-most-prolific commenter. From the current Wright-Althouse diavlog comment thread: "The only way you could help people is by getting permanent cases of laryngitis and arthritis." (bjkeefe to Althouse) "Gutless hag." (bjkeefe, on Althouse) Isn't it time for Bob to pull the plug on Brendan? Clearly he can't take a hint.

Quoting Saint Russell: Isn't it time for Bob to pull the plug on Brendan?

The only real question is, will harkin and Lyle rush to my defense, since they're so against calls for banning?

It's a progressive circle jerk of sorts here at bhtv. So they mouth off as much as they want about non-progressives. Bjkeefe is a definite offender at times. He shouldn't be banned though... once he's blown his load of progressivism out, he's normally cool.

Quoting Lyle: It's a progressive circle jerk of sorts here at bhtv. So they mouth off as much as they want about non-progressives. Bjkeefe is a definite offender at times.

He shouldn't be banned though... once he's blown his load of progressivism out, he's normally cool.

But the damage is done. If Bob has identified this behavior as harmful to his enterprise, and certain commenters persist in it, why should banning be off the table? And to my mind, it's nothing to do with anyone's left-of-center political views. Those can be expressed without resorting to insults. Anyway, it's just my opinion. If Bob prefers things as they are, so be it.

Quoting Lyle: ... Bjkeefe is a definite offender at times.

He shouldn't be banned though... once he's blown his load of progressivism out, he's normally cool.

Thanks, Lyle. And I mean that sincerely. (We need an anti-smiley to convey "truly, not being ironic.")

Bob can't pull the plug on BJ, he makes half the comments. Others speculate Bob pays him - an obvious explanation for the obsessive commenting

Quoting Saint Russell: But the damage is done. If Bob has identified this behavior as harmful to his enterprise, and certain commenters persist in it, why should banning be off the table? And to my mind, it's nothing to do with anyone's left-of-center political views. Those can be expressed without resorting to insults.

Seems to me that in order to be consistent, you'd have to call upon Bob to ban Ann, too. [Added] And why are you so quiet about the insults hurled at Amanda Marcotte, over at Crazy Annie's House of Crazy? Oh, wait, I know. You're only looking out for Bob's interests. Good of you. (Oops. Sarcasm. Sorry, Bob.)

Quoting rcocean: Bob can't pull the plug on BJ, he makes half the comments.

Nah. Barely even one-sixth.

Others speculate Bob pays him - an obvious explanation for the obsessive commenting

I see you've picked up Ann's habit of attributing your smears to others. Looks as classy on you as it does on her. Which is to say, not at all. Besides, Bob is not going to ban me. He cares about humanity. Look at how much fun I'm giving you poor saps who would otherwise be sitting in your basements, watching "Red Dawn" for like the nine billionth time.

I don't really disagree with you. I think the name calling of fellow commenters is more egregious than name calling public bloggers. The politics don't matter of course but because the majority of commenters here are left-of-center progressives they end up having conversations with themselves and feel free to mouth off about whomever. If there was more balance, maybe the name calling would happen less. I think if personal attacks are going to be allowed on bhtv, than people can do what Ann Althouse is doing and personally attack those who are doing it. Fair is fair.

You need to try and hold back some of your progressive hate though. Even if you guys dominate the forum, bhtv is not a progressives only place. Throwing wingnut and some of the other names around is kind of like throwing colored or darky around in front of African-Americans back in the day (today too).

Quoting bjkeefe: Seems to me that in order to be consistent, you'd have to call upon Bob to ban Ann, too.

When Althouse's post count hits 6000, we can revisit that question.

Quoting bjkeefe: And why are you so quiet about the insults hurled at Amanda Marcotte, over at Crazy Annie's House of Crazy?

As I said in the Althouse comment thread, I don't read Marcotte, so the subject doesn't hold much interest for me. Anyone else is perfectly free to defend her. And they may be right. I like Althouse, but it's only fair to say that she likes controversy, and she puts her own spin on things. I don't presume she's always right!

Quoting bjkeefe: Oh, wait, I know. You're only looking out for Bob's interests. Good of you.

Only as far as they coincide with my own. I watch many of the Bloggingheads diavlogs. It's a great site and I would like to see it succeed.

The problem with Althouse is not her verbiage, but her uncouth use of expletives.

Quoting Saint Russell: When Althouse's post count hits 6000, we can revisit that question.

I think we should count all the words she says in diavlogs, too. And since you can't stop obsessing about how much I post, maybe you would like to go through and make a statistical analysis. You'd find, among other things, a low percentage of insulting comments, I'll wager.

As I said in the Althouse comment thread ...

Answered over there.

Only as far as they coincide with my own. I watch many of the Bloggingheads diavlogs. It's a great site and I would like to see it succeed.

If so, you might ask yourself what you could do to help that happen. One possibility: spend more time commenting on the diavlogs, and less time trying to regulate the behavior of other commenters. You might even get the occasional civil response from me, if you had anything to say besides "WAAAH!!! He has 6000 posts and WAAAHHH!!! he called my girlfriend names!!1!"

Actually I'm rather impressed by the restraint that Brendan showed waiting until 105 comments were posted before joining in. I've said it before and I'll say it one more time. People with thin skin who are quick to take offense maybe shouldn't make a regular practice of being a "provocateur." As far as the quality of the site, I hope Bob will consider a similiar argument that he himself made about why he doesn't have another Ann (Coulter) on Bloggingheads and ask if maybe that logic should apply to AA. I can't help but notice that 99% of the comment threads here are consistently respectful, well-informed and thought-provoking. Of the 1% or so that degrade into infantile name-calling, a disproportionate amount are diavlogs featuring AA. I don't mind AA diavlogs, but I wonder if the +'s (which I think are marginal compared to other guests) outweigh the -'s of the playground mentality that seems to follow her wherever she goes.

Quoting Lyle: You need to try and hold back some of your progressive hate though. Even if you guys dominate the forum, bhtv is not a progressives only place. Throwing wingnut and some of the other names around is kind of like throwing colored or darky around in front of African-Americans back in the day (today too).

Your plea is reminiscent of the playground call for choosing new teams because you're made uncomfortable by the lopsided score. Well boo hoo. And as for language: Feel free to vent in your usual vein - you know - assorted reference to sex parts and lame attempts at balance by referencing outdated racial slurs. You will be treated with the usual respect accorded commenters. Fair game for rebuttal or argument. You suffer from the idea that all progressives think alike. Or that a label of lefty or righty is easily affixed to a commenter based on an idea presented. I'll prove how you are wrong: Based on your output, I think you're an idiot - now that can't be the case can it?

ebeneezer, AA is a great diavlogger, imo. Her threads are no different than any other threads. If one of the diavloggers is perceived to be non-progressive trash gets hurled their way. Conn Carroll? Yeah, people only ever say nice things about him. And if AA were to be asked to come on less often, the likes of Jane Hamsher should come on less often as well. Cause she's loud and proud of her views too. That hag!!! (I don't really mean that)

No... I don't want to see people banned. Bob Wright might actually start banning those of you who throw "idiot" and "wingnut" around. I don't really care if this place is dominated by progressives. If I was bothered by that, I'd have stop posting a long time ago or never posted at all.

Jane and Conn definitely provoke heated comments as well, but I don't think quite to the level of AA. Jane is not on very often, and well Conn appears to no longer be an issue. That's it! The solution is to get Ann a cushy job that will make her too busy to do BHTV! ;-)

Quoting Lyle: You need to ...

I don't "need" to do anything.

... try and hold back some of your progressive hate though.

Least of all take suggestions on decorum from someone who enjoys hating on liberals. And before you protest, "What? What?", I'll skip linking to your past posts, since I've done that enough times already, and add that even if you never let another slight slip from your lips or fingertips, there's still the rest of the lunatic right, who are doing their level best to screw up my country, to deal with. You're damned right I hate them, and I'm not going to keep quiet about it. When you talk Rush Limbaugh and his AM radio pals into retiring, convince Rupert Murdoch to replace O'Reilly and Hannity and Beck and Fox and Fiends with people who can tell the truth, and get everyone in the wingnutosphere a full-time job in a place with no Internet connection, then come talk to me.

Even if you guys dominate the forum, bhtv is not a progressives only place.

Who said it was? I don't want it to be. Neither do any of the other lefties here. I don't know how many fucking times

Quoting basman:
So who amongst here is near to being obsessed: someone who, on balance, enjoys her and says so, trying in an evauative way to say why; or someone who despises here but does not have the strength simply to ignore her, but, must, rather, like a moth to a flame, go out of his way, and anonymously at that, to demean and attack her, I ask?

For what it's worth, a person like me really doesn't use the phrase 'blog obsessive' like it's a bad thing.

Well... Bob Wright might not appreciate what you have to say and since he's God here you might ought to think about what he has said before.

Quoting Lyle: Conn Carroll? Yeah, people only ever say nice things about him.

Conn was criticized harshly, I'll grant, but overwhelmingly, on the substance of his diavlogs and blog posts. Also, don't forget that he used to get a ton of praise for TWiB. When he turned into a mouthpiece for the Heritage Foundation, he deserved the heat, and it is a tribute to this board that the criticisms stayed as substantive as they did. You disagree? Ask yourself why he'd bother jumping into the forums so often, then. This whining about vigorous disputes with points of view that are anathema to liberals really won't wash, Lyle. You're asking for affirmative action-style treatment for conservatives, and it's only made more ridiculous by the things you say about lefty diavloggers and commenters.

And if AA were to be asked to come on less often, the likes of Jane Hamsher should come on less often as well.

By my count, Jane has been on eleven times, and Ann has been on thirty-seven times. What else you got?

Quoting Lyle: Well... Bob Wright might not appreciate what you have to say and since he's God here you might ought to think about what he has said before.

And now I'm gonna cry to the teacher.

Was I whining? Was I actually calling for Jane Hamsher to be less of diavlogger? No and no.

Quoting graz: And now I'm gonna cry to the teacher.

Exactamundo. Grow a pair, will you please, Lyle?

Ah... I don't think bjkeefe should be banned. Bob Wright might think otherwise though. He is in fact in charge here.

Quoting Lyle: Was I whining? Was I actually calling for Jane Hamsher to be less of diavlogger? No and no.

Yes, you were, and yes, you were. Don't try to play this "I wasn't saying that" bullshit again, Lyle. You'll be talking to yourself. I've learned -- when you lose an argument, this is invariably what you do. Anyone who wants to read the preceding posts can decide for themselves. Whoops. Forgot you like to edit after you've been responded to. Welp, best hop to it.

Althouse is rattled because Twitter is taking a huge chunk out of her traffic. I love how she rails against Twitter and then completely denounces it. Hey Althouse, if ya can't beat 'em..... Twitter is popular because extemporaneous thoughts have the potential to be much more fresh and spontaneous than the contrivance of a pre-arranged, ungainly blogpost. Besides, if Maxine just joined only two days ago, and already has nearly 70 followers...... http://twitter.com/maxinesplace

Quoting Lyle: Ah... I don't think bjkeefe should be banned. Bob Wright might think otherwise though. He is in fact in charge here.

Maybe if you type that a few more times, LIKE IN ALL CAPS, he might hear you. What are you, Lyle, about eight years old?

Quoting MaxineWeiss: Althouse is rattled because Twitter is taking a huge chunk out of her traffic.

Say it ain't so! That's a hilarious thought.

Nope... not whining and never called for Hamsher to come on less. I made the point that if non-progressives can be kept off of bhtv, than the same argument can be made for progressive diavloggers. That's not the same thing as seriously asking bhtv to have them on less often though.

What's your problem? I don't want you banned. It is a fact though that Bob Wright can prevent people from posting here. What do you not understand about that?

Quoting Lyle: What's your problem? I don't want you banned. It is a fact though that Bob Wright can prevent people from posting here. What do you not understand about that?

Shorter Lyle:

fap, fap, fap ...

You are being a wingnut, Lyle. One of the things wingnuts do is say the same thing over and over again, as though repetition makes it a stronger statement.

I think you're a bit crazy. Bob Wright does in fact run this place.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/185...1:12&out=41:20 Thanks, Bob. I'm not sure why you find it necessary to give credibility to the egomaniacal maunderings of this self-obsessed ninny, but I'm glad there's SOME limit to your politeness. I wonder if Althouse supports Michele Bachman's bill to prevent the US from dropping the dollar in favor of a single world currency....
If she doesn't now, I'm sure it's just a matter of time

Quoting Lyle: I think you're a bit crazy. Bob Wright does in fact run this place.

I'm crazy? How many more times are you going to say this about Bob, Lyle? Who has ever disputed it? What, you think if you keep invoking his name, he's going to swoop in, pick me up by the scruff of my neck, drag me out of the room, and come back and give you a lollipop?

Forget it, you've yet to understand anything I've written.

Quoting Lyle: Forget it, you've yet to understand anything I've written.

I understand exactly what you've been saying, Lyle. You would like me to be banned, but you're too chickenshit to say it. But if you want to forget it, fine. Glad to.

No, actually I don't want you to be banned. This is Bob Wright's place though, not yours (is this true or not true?). That's all I've been saying. You keep projecting your own emotional whatever on to other peoples' comments instead of just taking their comments for what they are. So when I write, "I don't want bjkeefe banned"... that means, I don't want bjkeefe banned. How exactly did you understand this the first time I wrote it, but don't now?

So, it appears, you actually don't want to forget it?

Quoting Lyle: This is Bob Wright's place though, not yours (is this true or not true?).

Please, say this a few more times. I'm not sure everyone believes it yet. You are without a doubt the most passive-aggressive person I have ever encountered, Lyle. Please continue this conversation by yourself. May it lead to self-termination.

Just to be clear, I welcome the chance to see David Frum, Eli Lake, Rod Dreher and any number of intelligent, thoughtful right-wingers on BHtv. Conn Carroll was not thoughtful -- he was too busy auditioning for Fox News -- but he at least gave signs of intelligence. I'm not demanding that guests agree with me -- just that they occasionally do something more illuminating than preen and cite the gospel according to El Rushbo.

bjkeefe, It's a statement of fact. Bob Wright can ban me if he wants to. Do you recognize this?

I've visited the Althouse blog on many occasions and always find it to be so cliquish it's not worth the time. Ann generally posts some kind of outlandish headline, much of the time about herself, or as bait for the conservatives that dominate, then sits back and watches her loyal followers congratulate her on being so insightful. There's plenty of anti-Semitism and racism to go around, Obama and anyone even remotely liberal is roundly despised by most of the regulars, and anybody who falls out of line or disagrees is shouted down.

BJ, I'm not implying anything, just raising the question. "Lots" of people think you are. And of course, I'm just asking an objective question - not smearing. Kinda like Ezra.

Ann Althouse: "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair."

Quoting rcocean: BJ,

I'm not implying anything, just raising the question. "Lots" of people think you are. And of course, I'm just asking an objective question - not smearing.

You didn't use a question mark, so you're lying about asking anything. Your quote marks around "Lots" suggest even you don't believe this word would be true, if left unadorned. And yes, you are smearing. You claimed that Bob is paying me to comment. Oh, sorry, you claimed "others speculate" that he is. Where is your evidence? You're just repeating an unfounded rumor, and given your lack of documentation to support a claim that anyone else has said this, it seems likely you made it up yourself. If you have something to say, say it directly, and stop trying to pawn it off on "others," like every other gutless wingnut. Excuse me, I meant your "friends." Why don't you just go back to Althouse's playpen and put your thumb back in your mouth? Or wherever it usually goes.

Althouse blathers on about how horrible the Obama plan is, then says she really hopes it succeeds. She also says she voted for Obama, which I do not believe. All one has to do is visit her site to see the constant railing against Obama's every moe, and that includes Althouse.

[quote=Dalton;108340]Althouse blathers on about how horrible the Obama plan is, then says she really hopes it succeeds. She also says she voted for Obama, which I do not believe. All one has to do is visit her site to see the constant railing against Obama's every moe, and that includes Althouse.

Well first, I mean "Lots" in the Ezra Klein sense, meaning one or two. Secondly, BJ (and others) think Klein's comment: "Ann Althouse sure has a lot of anti-semitic commenters". Isn't a smear or implying anything bad - why its just a statement. So, I just applied the same logic/standard of intellectual honesty to BJK & asked an innocent question. What's the problem?

On Rush Limbaugh, et al.:

Quoting bjkeefe: You're damned right I hate them, and I'm not going to keep quiet about it."

Re: the claim that he wants BHtv to be a progressives-only place: "Who said it was? I don't want it to be. Neither do any of the other lefties here. I don't know how many fucking times we have to say this." Given that you hate the aforementioned right-wingers, why would you want people like them to post on BHtv? You don't honestly think you're going to change their minds, right? Is it just to hone your argumentative skills? Or do you not want right-wingers of that sort posting here, but rather right-wingers of the Larisonian and (perhaps) Douthatian type posting here?

In support of BN's comment, I'm something of a conservative, and I have no idea why anyone who's interested in the ideas behind politics, rather than just the point-scoring, would listen to her. She seems really puerile.

Quoting Bobby G: On Rush Limbaugh, et al.:

Re: the claim that he wants BHtv to be a progressives-only place:

"Who said it was? I don't want it to be. Neither do any of the other lefties here. I don't know how many fucking times we have to say this."

Given that you hate the aforementioned right-wingers, why would you want people like them to post on BHtv? You don't honestly think you're going to change their minds, right? Is it just to hone your argumentative skills? Or do you not want right-wingers of that sort posting here, but rather right-wingers of the Larisonian and (perhaps) Douthatian type posting here?

Let me point out the possibility that you might have a problem with, say, Rush that has less to do with his ideology specifically than with a judgment that he's a demagogue and therefore does more to poison a debate than he adds to it. Of course it's always easier to damn the other side's bastards than those with whom you agree. Speaking strictly for myself I don't care what somebody believes, I do care whether I think they're honest, and whether I believe they fight fair. Rush, Coulter, Malkin, Glen Beck, Andy McCarthy, most of the

Quoting AemJeff: Let me point out the possibility that you might have a problem with, say, Rush that has less to do with his ideology specifically than with a judgment that he's a demagogue and therefore does more to poison a debate than he adds to it.

That's a good point.

Speaking strictly for myself I don't care what somebody believes, I do care whether I think they're honest, and whether I believe they fight fair. Rush, Coulter, Malkin, Glen Beck, Andy McCarthy, most of the AM political talk I've heard, eg, I don't think these folks need to welcomed to the table. On the other hand, Derbyshire, Buchanan, Nordlinger, Podhoretz, Buckley (if he were still around), not to mention Larison, Salaam, Douthat (eg) - I have varying opinions about the quality of their opinions, but I'd never say they don't deserve a seat.

I'm surprised you don't care what someone believes. Of course, probably neither you nor I want someone in here representing Stormfront or the Aryan Nation, but why about global warming skeptics or intelligent design proponents? Why is it useful to hear their voice? I should think you give no credence to any of their claims, given that you know their conclusions are false. So what's the point of having them around? I ask

Quoting Bobby G: On Rush Limbaugh, et al.:

Re: the claim that he wants BHtv to be a progressives-only place:

"Who said it was? I don't want it to be. Neither do any of the other lefties here. I don't know how many fucking times we have to say this."

Given that you hate the aforementioned right-wingers, why would you want people like them to post on BHtv? You don't honestly think you're going to change their minds, right? Is it just to hone your argumentative skills? Or do you not want right-wingers of that sort posting here, but rather right-wingers of the Larisonian and (perhaps) Douthatian type posting here?

Jeff's already said it pretty well, but just for the record, I'll reaffirm: There is a big difference between all non-liberals/non-progressives and wingnuts. The latter is only a small subset of the former. I do not care to have people who do nothing but repeat the sort of nonsense put forth by hate radio, Fox News, and the wingnutosphere given slots as diavloggers, since I think they add nothing useful to the discourse, and in fact, detract greatly from it. Same for comments that aren't anything more than parroting the talking points from these

Quoting rcocean: Well first, I mean "Lots" in the Ezra Klein sense, meaning one or two.

Secondly, BJ (and others) think Klein's comment:

"Ann Althouse sure has a lot of anti-semitic commenters".

Isn't a smear or implying anything bad - why its just a statement. So, I just applied the same logic/standard of intellectual honesty to BJK & asked an innocent question.

What's the problem?

Your entire comment shows the problem, and also the unlikelihood that you'll ever understand it. This is assuming you're not being like Lyle, and just continually shifting your argument for the sake of arguing, of course. If you'll recall, two posts ago, your complaint was all about me. Now you've switched to making it about Ezra Klein vs. Ann Althouse, a topic about which I have said nothing. So, I don't see the relevance. Since you now appear to be at the point of grabbing the first thing at hand and tossing it without any regard to how it might apply, I don't see the point in discussing any of this with you any further.

Quoting Bobby G: That's a good point.

I'm surprised you don't care what someone believes. Of course, probably neither you nor I want someone in here representing Stormfront or the Aryan Nation, but why about global warming skeptics or intelligent design proponents? Why is it useful to hear their voice? I should think you give no credence to any of their claims, given that you know their conclusions are false. So what's the point of having them around?

I ask this in all seriousness. At least in philosophy departments, people have occasionally wondered, "given that philosophy is about the search for truth, why have someone who believes [insert crazy belief here] around?" Maybe having one person who denies global warming would be useful for keeping us on our toes, but why two or more? Or why want people who blame Obama for all our economic and foreign policy woes around?

I'm pretty certain that most of the current pro-ID arguments are, pretty much, dressed up, more sophisticated versions of something like the flat-earthers' arguments. If you keep repeating the same, refuted, arguments, you're a crank, and therefore a demagogue. Much of what flows from the anti-AGW camp is based on work that can easily be attacked for at least

BJ, You're simply too intelligent to "play dumb" convincingly. Oh, well. As for "not taking a position" on Klein. No doubt your shyness, love of Althouse, and reluctance to post kept you from attacking Klein's dishonesty.

Quoting rcocean: BJ,

You're simply too intelligent to "play dumb" convincingly.

I don't know what you're referring to specifically, but thanks, in general.

As for "not taking a position" on Klein. No doubt your shyness, love of Althouse, and reluctance to post kept you from attacking Klein's dishonesty.

No. It was purely lack of interest. I saw Ezra's post and agreed that three (I think) of the comments he referred to were as he characterized them -- anti-Semitic slurs, directed at him. I didn't read the entire thread, so I can't say whether "lots" of such comments were made. My general impression of Althouse comment threads is that there does tend to be chiming in when something has been started, so ... whatever. So, I don't think Ezra was dishonest about this, and I don't think he is in general. (Ann, on the other hand, has a considerably more spotty record.) But really, the overriding emotion for me is that Ann thrives on attention, and one of the ways she keeps it coming is to pick these sorts of fights. I don't find such things much worth it even for laughs anymore, so I didn't pay attention to the how this spat evolved or get involved in the bickering about it here. To get back

Quoting rcocean: BJ,

You're simply too intelligent to "play dumb" convincingly. Oh, well.

As for "not taking a position" on Klein. No doubt your shyness, love of Althouse, and reluctance to post kept you from attacking Klein's dishonesty.

This is why Althouse is disliked, and why you rarely get treated with much respect here, either. Ezra was directly attacked in specifically anti-Semitic terms. He acknowledged that he may have overreacted in his response and posted about that on his well-read blog. Althouse chooses to react to the situation entirely as an attack on her, without even tacit acknowledgment of the entirely ugly situation that arose in a forum entirely under her control. Calling Ezra "dishonest" for taking seriously, and possibly overstating the quantity of those attacks - hardly the salient point - ignores the nature of what he was reacting to and casts the person who was clearly the victim as an aggressor. Althouse plays the controversy for her own advantage without the slightest nod to how her game affects the other players. Sycophants like you ignore her ugly disregard for her victims, and slavishly repeat the fun-house mirror Althouse distortions of whatever the current circus du jour is.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm pretty certain that most of the current pro-ID arguments are, pretty much, dressed up, more sophisticated versions of something like the flat-earthers' arguments. If you keep repeating the same, refuted, arguments, you're a crank, and therefore a demagogue. Much of what flows from the anti-AGW camp is based on work that can easily be attacked for at least the appearance of corruption.

I have a great deal of faith in the process of public argument and peer review. If there are people who argue the above views who have also survived the sieve implicit in having followed those rules, then I'd say they deserve a place at the table with everybody else.

Obviously there's no bright line - this guy's a demagogue - but HE's not. But a useful approximation is certainly reachable via open, public argument, IMHO.

I remember an essay by Stanley Fish, who I would love to see on here btw, taking apart Bush 43’s claim that ID should have its fair place on the curriculum as a rival theory to evolution. Fish as I remember argued in part that public popularity does not import merit into any particular idea and that experts in their fields

Quoting basman:
I say this, which seems kind of obvious to me, in pointed contrast to some of what I read above—now that hopefully the just preceding train wreck and its debris have been cleared away—tending to point to a received opinion contraction of the criteria for invitation. (And fwiiw, I’d like to see a Limbaugh and some like folks that I can think of on here once in a while put against someone strongly contrary to him/them, willing strongly to take him/them on.)

Itzik Basman

The power of the demagogue resides in his ownership of the show and his/her ability to cut off debate by controlling the mic. Bring it on. Not that requests for pairings or particular guests has ever fallen on hearing ears.

Quoting basman: Generally, much more than curriculum makers, the editors(s) here should give wide latitude and lots of deference to contrarian and radical thought that can intelligently defended.

Those last two words cannot be emphasized enough. However ...

That inclusiveness ought be one of the grounds of this site, and I think it is and tries to be. I’d love to see an exchange between say a Francis Collins type IDer and a Gerry Coyne type of evolutionist—so eviscerative is he of ID. Similarly I’d love to see equally astute folks debate global warming ...

I can't buy this. There is a place for "contrarian and radical thought," to be sure, but these aren't topics where there are worthy candidates for such viewpoints any longer. Except as pure entertainment, what would be the point of rehashing them? Why not debate the shape of the Earth? Evolution and AGW are settled scientific questions. That someone may be able to dazzle an audience with rhetorical footwork doesn't change anything. I'm sure there are people who could "win" a "debate" on any proposition. It's a waste of time, when there is so much more of interest to talk about that remains

Quoting basman: I remember an essay by Stanley Fish, who I would love to see on here btw, taking apart Bush 43’s claim that ID should have its fair place on the curriculum as a rival theory to evolution. Fish as I remember argued in part that public popularity does not import merit into any particular idea and that experts in their fields needed to be left alone to determine course and course content in their fields. Which is not to say, nor does Fish say, that responsible contrarian or, more, radical thought ought not be taught on their merits.

Some rough though imperfect analogy here, though different from the academy the popularity of an idea, however unmeritorious the idea, might well be a criterion for inclusion. Generally, much more than curriculum makers, the editors(s) here should give wide latitude and lots of deference to contrarian and radical thought that can be intelligently defended. That inclusiveness ought be one of the grounds of this site, and I think it is and tries to be. I’d love to see an exchange between say a Francis Collins type IDer and a Gerry Coyne type of evolutionist—so eviscerative is

Brendan: You exemplify the contraction of criteria crowd. You want to cut off thought. I’m not sure you understand the provisionality of science. That provisionality rests on the scientific method’s absolute need to be open to falsifiability. What does not falsify makes hypotheses stronger. Read the debates between David Berlinski and his critics for example. I have no training in science and found the arguments hard to follow, but he clearly to me gave as good as he took. And stuff like that would be edifying here. Similarly, for example the arguments and skepticism of a Bjorn Lomborg engaged critically would be food for thought . Don’t you want to hear from people that you yourself can’t stand up to, because you are not as well trained or as knowledegeable as them in their fields? And do you really want to compare these issues to the shape of the earth? What a pathetic analogy! Are you so insecure in your certitudes that you cannot stand the heat of arguments contrary to them? Good God, what would you have done to poor Galileo? Only an insufferable fool presumes to prejudge history. Look

Quoting basman: Brendan:

You exemplify the contraction of criteria crowd.

You want to cut off thought.

That is flatly untrue, and a hysterical accusation to boot. It is precisely because I am interested in hearing different thoughts that I have no patience for yet more debate on settled questions. Evolution and AGW are as settled as anything we know. And, as I pointed out, you're free to seek out such debates elsewhere.

I’m not sure you understand the provisionality of science.

Better than you, I'd wager ...

I have no training in science ...

... in part because I have -- both education and professional experience.

Similarly, for example the arguments and skepticism of a Bjorn Lomborg engaged critically would be food for thought .

As far as I understand where Lomborg is coming from these days, he is not an AGW denier (any more?). He apparently is now dining out on representing alternate ways to deal with the problem. That is a different topic than debating whether AGW is real or not, one I'm happy to hear more about.

Don’t you want to hear from people that you yourself can’t stand up to, because you are not as well trained or as knowledegeable as them

Brendan: As I said "insufferable fool". You just don't like to hear the way it is about you. And add to "insufferable", "obsessive" and "pathetic" as manifest in your insatiable compulsion to get in the last 300,000 words. But on these issues, I have nothing further to say to you. As Cousin Vinnie said after laying out some poor fool, "Dismissed, I'm done with him". When you have something sensible to say on some other issue, I'll get back to you. Itzik Basman

Quoting Lyle: bjkeefe,

It's a statement of fact. Bob Wright can ban me if he wants to. Do you recognize this?

Lyle:

I'm still waiting for an answer!!!
I swear I'll hold my breath till blue.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: As far as your thought experiment goes (aside from the fact that male hormones would no doubt have you act much differently), I think you're over-applying your tastes (and your friends tastes) to an inaccurate degree on the rest of women out there. First of all, the Woody Allen's of the world don't have access to whoever they want. Trust me on this. I know the kinds of guys who have the traits you're talking about.

Actually, I‘m not sure you know the kinds of guys I’m talking about uncle eb, simply for the reason that the qualities I’m speaking of are very elusive and have to do with a certain something that equals sexual attraction. While it’s true that many men can probably list out traits in men that women find attractive, I’m pretty sure most men would not understand what I’m referring to as it is something that goes beyond traits or personality – there is a certain demeanor and projection of who you are…..the funny thing is that most men probably don’t consciously recognize this IT factor even if they had it

Quoting Lyle: She supports gay marriage, i.e., she has no problem with men who like to stick their penis' in other men or if they live together under the law.

Wow, what an attractive and witty guy you must be Lyle. People must be falling all over themselves to get your insightful opinions.

Just to let you know, Lomborg has never been a global warming denier (not that you said he was--you just seemed to ask), he just thought that the costs of doing something about global warming would be really high, and we'd be better off spending that money on nine other things, the most important of which is poverty relief.

Quoting Bobby G: Just to let you know, Lomborg has never been a global warming denier (not that you said he was--you just seemed to ask), he just thought that the costs of doing something about global warming would be really high, and we'd be better off spending that money on nine other things, the most important of which is poverty relief.

That sounds familiar. Thanks for the jumping in to clarify. To my mind, saying "I acknowledge the reality of AGW, but I don't think we can/should do anything about it" is almost as bad as being an outright denier. We can debate what's better to do, how much we should spend on the efforts, etc., but to start off by saying "let's do nothing" is crazy. Or, more precisely, short-term thinking run amok. If it's his argument that doing these other things has as much of an alleviating effect as more direct measures, I suppose that's an argument worth hearing, but I'd go in very skeptical that the argument would boil down to "when everyone is more prosperous, things will just fix themselves, because there won't be any more inefficient cars, power plants, wood fires, etc. Problem solved!"

nice princess bride reference, BJ kudos!

Quoting popcorn_karate: nice princess bride reference, BJ

kudos!

And to you, for catching it.

Lemon:

Actually, I‘m not sure you know the kinds of guys I’m talking about uncle eb, simply for the reason that the qualities I’m speaking of are very elusive and have to do with a certain something that equals sexual attraction.

Well perhaps, but unless you [edit: "expand"] your definition ["to include more specifics"] I think it would be hard to make that determination (as far as my knowledge.) If you're willing to share, I'm sure that me, and all the other males out there would love for you to elaborate on just what those elusive traits or combinations of traits are. I, for one, promise that I will only use such knowledge for good ;-)

Of course someone like Woody Allen or Howard Stern(!) would not have had much success with women before they became rich and famous! In my thought experiment, I would not be Woody Allen, I would merely look like him. I used him as an example to show that were I a man that was not that physically attractive or rich (but I should note that he should not be physically repulsive or dirt poor), I would still be able to attract lots of women, beautiful women at

Regarding Ezra's take on Ann's site, I just remembered that when the whole Jessica Valenti thing happened, Ezra was on BH not too long after to discuss and it was clear that he and Jessica were friends and that he was pretty disgusted at what had happened. I don't read Ann's blogs (nothing in particular against you Ann, I just only have time (and can bear) just a few blogs regularly), but I have to take anything Ezra writes about Ann with this huge bias in mind. I like Ezra, but I somehow get the sense that there is a huge blogging community out there who are either friends with Jessica or are just blabbergasted (as they should be) at her unfounded and totally stupid comments about Jessica and her breasts and will never ever give her the benefit of a doubt. Anyway, I have no idea if my opinion would change if I was a regular reader of her blog but I like having Ann on Bloggingheads and her opinions are no less intolerable to me than many other guests we've had on. But I would think that there is a wide

I could see there being something to the personal aspect, for sure. But I could also just see it as a reaction based on professional standards. Although blogging is obviously a different ball-game than straight print journalism, Ezra is one of the many young bloggers who at least seem to use traditional journalistic standards as their guideposts. And from that perspective I can see why they would look upon Ann's tactics in regards to Jessica Valenti and Garrance etc. and be turned off from a sense of professionalism. This is essentially what most of us here who gripe about Ann are getting at. Ann admits that she tries to do her own thing, but the fact is that it is widely read and regularly lumped in with the more serious-minded blogs even though it really isn't in the same company. So like Kausfiles, I can understand why people who are trying to do more serious analysis, would occasionally want to distance her type of blog from theirs.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I, for one, promise that I will only use such knowledge for good ;-)

I don't know uncle. It's too powerful to be in the hands of men. As I've said, most men have it to varying degress but are not consicous of it. As soon as you become conscious of IT it will probably cease to work. And anyway, you might have a lot of it yourself and just don't know it!

Quoting bjkeefe: If it's his argument that doing these other things has as much of an alleviating effect as more direct measures, I suppose that's an argument worth hearing, but I'd go in very skeptical that the argument would boil down to "when everyone is more prosperous, things will just fix themselves, because there won't be any more inefficient cars, power plants, wood fires, etc. Problem solved!"

I think his argument is something like: "if we spend trillions and trillions of dollars we can reduce the change by something like .5 degrees (I don't know the exact figure, and I agree that knowing the exact figure is very important in this case). Given how much we have to spend for such a small effect, we should direct that money to other things, such as buying mosquito nets in Africa (which would cost only about $30 million)." The idea being, we can stop more death using all those trillions than we could using it on global warming. Of course, jerks will look at his argument, conclude that we shouldn't spend any money on global warming, and further just spend what they would have spent on global warming on bridges

Quoting bjkeefe: There is a big difference between all non-liberals/non-progressives and wingnuts. The latter is only a small subset of the former.

I know that's your view, but what I was wondering was: what would you think of dittoheads coming in here and having a back-and-forth with us? Would you welcome that? If so, why? But from what you write here...

I do not care to have people who do nothing but repeat the sort of nonsense put forth by hate radio, Fox News, and the wingnutosphere given slots as diavloggers, since I think they add nothing useful to the discourse, and in fact, detract greatly from it.

...it appears that you wouldn't welcome them. As for the short-temperedness, I wish you got less affected by the people you describe as wingnuts. I think you'd have more of a chance of actually changing their minds, or if not that, then at least their impression of liberals. Not that I particularly care for liberalism, but I don't care much for acrimony.

Quoting Bobby G: I think his argument is something like: "if we spend trillions and trillions of dollars we can reduce the change by something like .5 degrees (I don't know the exact figure, and I agree that knowing the exact figure is very important in this case). Given how much we have to spend for such a small effect, we should direct that money to other things, such as buying mosquito nets in Africa (which would cost only about $30 million)." The idea being, we can stop more death using all those trillions than we could using it on global warming.

Point taken. This is getting a little silly, since we don't know his exact argument, but I will say the following under the assumption that you've represented it accurately. First, this sounds an awful lot like fixing a broken window to keep the rain out when there is a gaping hole in the roof. While of course I feel horrible about people dying right now from preventable problems, looked at from the global perspective, it's short-sighted. Second, it presumes there is a fixed amount of money available for solving problems, which is not true (although I do acknowledge

Quoting Bobby G: I know that's your view, but what I was wondering was: what would you think of dittoheads coming in here and having a back-and-forth with us? Would you welcome that? If so, why? But from what you write here...

I do not care to have people who do nothing but repeat the sort of nonsense put forth by hate radio, Fox News, and the wingnutosphere given slots as diavloggers, since I think they add nothing useful to the discourse, and in fact, detract greatly from it.

...it appears that you wouldn't welcome them.

That's pretty much true. If by dittoheads visiting here, you mean people chanting mantras like "liberals suck," "Obama is a communist," "the drive-by media sucks," "feminazis suck," and so on, I don't see what such people would add, whether on camera or in the comments. I want to hear thoughtfulness and new ideas, not broken records. Besides, it strikes me that the stereotypical dittohead is fundamentally not interested in having a genuine discussion, but rather, prefers to argue through volume and repetition, and takes pleasure solely in how much saying obnoxious things can irritate liberals.

As for the short-temperedness, I wish you got less affected by the people you describe as wingnuts. I think you'd have more

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't think you're right about the possibility of changing their minds, but I'll take the rest under advisement.

I really think I am right about that. But maybe it's the whole Christian turn the other cheek thing talking. That's not to pat myself on the bat, by the way--I have serious worries about whether "turn-the-other-cheek" is, in fact, a good policy. The way I'm thinking, though, there are some dittoheads who genuinely think that liberals have nothing to say in response to their arguments. And they'd be surprised that there are responses, and indeed, cool-headed ones at that.

I will say, however, as I've said before, that I am tired of my side always having to be the ones who keep their cool and respond reasonably, while the other side gets to say whatever they want, however they want. So, I'm not going to make any blanket promises.

Wow, you and I see things from two very different points of view. Being someone who's lived in an academic environment all the time, I hear the most outrageous things said about "my side", and when I respond in the qualified way I usually respond here, I occasionally get rage or a call for psychotherapy as a response. Also, my brother works

...You, for example -- I'm not usually an asshole towards you, am I?... I can't help but note the self admitted explicit assumption this question turns on. Itzik Basman

Quoting Bobby G: I really think I am right about that. But maybe it's the whole Christian turn the other cheek thing talking. That's not to pat myself on the bat, by the way--I have serious worries about whether "turn-the-other-cheek" is, in fact, a good policy.

I've always been partial to the sermon preached (I think) by Rev. Leroy, of the Church of What's Happening Now, who said, "If you enemy strikes you on the cheek, God commands that you must turn the other cheek. But if your enemy should strike you on the other cheek, too, the third strike, my brothers and sisters, the third strike I say is yours!" But seriously ...

The way I'm thinking, though, there are some dittoheads who genuinely think that liberals have nothing to say in response to their arguments. And they'd be surprised that there are responses, and indeed, cool-headed ones at that.

Well, maybe. It depends what you mean by "dittohead." Remember that I was speaking in terms of the stereotypical dittohead, someone whom I view as being unwilling to hear anything that conflicts with what Rush says, by definition. It's basically the same thing as my distinguishing wingnuts from non-liberals overall. I'd also say that I do not always respond with rancor, even to such

Quoting basman: ...You, for example -- I'm not usually an asshole towards you, am I?...

I can't help but note the self admitted explicit assumption this question turns on.

Itzik Basman

Hey, Itzik. You bring it, you're going to get some back. You don't, you won't. Be honest with yourself, and/or go back and read some of our exchanges from weeks and months past, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Our latest exchange, if you'll recall, started with me disagreeing with you on the intellectual plane, and you responding highly emotionally, with accusations and insults, to which I responded in kind, at which point you had a meltdown. I'm not your enemy, and I'm usually happy to hear from you, but I'm not going to just take whatever bile you feel like venting because you had a bad day, or can't take Althouse getting trashed, or whatever it was that set you off.

(Noam Scheiber and I had drinks every so often!)

Cool. As much as I hate the expression, Noam strikes me as the kinda dude that WOULD be fun to grab a drink with. I would point out that I do see a bit of lop-sidedness in the expected tenor of liberals/conservatives. Brendan, and this place being a perfect example. There used to be a commenter, GarbageCowboy who was on here all the time, who for lack of a better analogy was the conservative version of BJ. Well thought out, respectful, very thought-provoking, but he never backed down or hesitated to call bullshit if he thought you were crossing into sketchy territory. He was one of the most prolific commentors of the BH early years. And yet nobody ever raised conspiracy theories about him being on Bob's payroll, or dominating the comments thread. Hardly anyone complained about him being closed-minded or wanting to make BH comments into a conservative echo-chamber. And yet we hear that kinda crap about Brendan all the time, solely because he pushes back vehemently and has a high post count. I chalk it up to conservatives hearing the liberal-media trope so often that they've bought

I have only been exposed to Bloggingheads.tv for a short time interval (Trying to broaden my horizons and all that), and I have to say it seems to be a fairly high minded place (relative to many other political/economic/social blogs I have tried and dismissed as worthless parroting of party ideologies). AA is fine when discussing things based on law, but on everything else she clearly does not meet the requirements to provoke an interesting thought/discussion, she also tends to distort reality to meet her preconceived beliefs to a large degree, so I can't use her as a reliable source of information (Like I can with M&M at UN Plaza). I would encourage Bob to limit her visits here to law based discussions.

I would encourage Bob to limit her visits here to law based discussions.

Censorship!! Banning!! Fascism!!!

Well, there's the fact that BJ is a moderator and the fact that he's part of the (literally existing, no?) gang of twelve. Moreover, BJ is, kind of, the voice of BHtv among the commenters. I'm serious about that. Since he posts so much, and since his posts are usually quite well put together, I think people see him as a leader to direct their energies towards. I wish GC were around nowadays, but he's not, so that's the situation.

I think what you said, Bobby G, is correct. And what Eb said before that was correct, too. In a nutshell, it's like the Yankees. If you get your ass kicked by them over and over and over, you come to hate them.

Quoting Bobby G: Well, there's the fact that BJ is a moderator and the fact that he's part of the (literally existing, no?) gang of twelve.

Moreover, BJ is, kind of, the voice of BHtv among the commenters. I'm serious about that. Since he posts so much, and since his posts are usually quite well put together, I think people see him as a leader to direct their energies towards. I wish GC were around nowadays, but he's not, so that's the situation.

Bobby, please understand that the Gang of Twelve is a conceit, a joke aimed at whingers who would rather complain about fantasies of conspiracy rather than just argue their views. Besides, the last meeting was weeks ago.

Quoting bjkeefe: I challenge you to name the liberal equivalent of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, or Michele Bachmann.

Or Rosanna Pulido.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Censorship!! Banning!! Fascism!!!

Fear me!

I know it's not serious, but it does really exist as a group of people, right?

Quoting Bobby G: I know it's not serious, but it does really exist as a group of people, right?

In that vBulletin supports something named "Social Groups," and that thirteen people (actually fourteen, but one of renounced) made the effort to click on a button labeled "Join," yeah - in the loosest sense possible - that description is accurate.

It's my understanding that Kaus was whining about the gang of 12 or something, so somebody made it real for laughs. There's maybe a dozen posts, all of them jokes. The last was in September.

Quoting claymisher: It's my understanding that Kaus was whining about the gang of 12 or something, so somebody made it real for laughs. There's maybe a dozen posts, all of them jokes. The last was in September.

Add to Mickey a couple of commenters who seem to equate a few vocal liberals with totalitarian suppression of ideas, and that's pretty much the gist of it.

Oh come on. Leave Mickey alone. More seriously, there are indeed two real phenomena to worry about: (1) when there's a bunch of like-minded people talking to each other, they tend to make each other more extreme; and (2) when one viewpoint predominates, there's an atmosphere of authority that goes with that viewpoint. That's one of the reasons why liberals hate living in small, Southern towns.

Quoting Bobby G: Oh come on. Leave Mickey alone.

The statements about Mickey are true. First, he is the originator of the phrase. He accused Bob in a diavlog a while back of tailoring his remarks solely to win acclaim from a few prominent commenters. I forget whether he said "gang of twelve" specifically, bur he did say "gang" and "twelve" close enough together that the phrase popped into existence. Making oblique references to Go12 was a running gag here for a while. It is also true that Mickey used to simultaneously claim that he never read the comments, praised the few who fawned, and complained about those most critical of him. So, it's not like he hasn't earned the guff he's taken from the peanut gallery, and that's without even getting into the stuff he says in the rest of the diavlogs and on his blog.

More seriously, there are indeed two real phenomena to worry about: (1) when there's a bunch of like-minded people talking to each other, they tend to make each other more extreme; and (2) when one viewpoint predominates, there's an atmosphere of authority that goes with that viewpoint. That's one of the reasons why liberals

The problem with this suggestion is that Ann Althouse doesn't blog only on the law, she just blogs. The point of Bh.tv isn't about having specialist bloggers only talk about what they specialize in, but to just talk. The UN guys actually need to bring in someone like Christopher Hitchens or John Bolton who will either tell them they're wrong or who will make them raise their voice (John Bolton maybe). Bob Wright had a foreign policy conversation one time with Robert Kagan who is an expert, unlike Bob Wright. The Science guys oft stray into things they're not experts in. So if Anne Althouse can only talk about the law, Bob Wright and others shouldn't have conversations about things they aren't experts in either... and that would be baloney. Bottom line: things are good the way they are. People should talk about what they want to talk about.

Quoting Lyle: The problem with this suggestion is that Ann Althouse doesn't blog only on the law, she just blogs. The point of Bh.tv isn't about having specialist bloggers only talk about what they specialize in, but to just talk. The UN guys actually need to bring in someone like Christopher Hitchens or John Bolton who will either tell them they're wrong or who will make them raise their voice (John Bolton maybe).

[...]

Bottom line: things are good the way they are. People should talk about what they want to talk about.

Except the question if someone is an expert on some subject is not a binary question, it is a spectrum. When AA is not talking about the law, she clearly is lower on the spectrum then the examples you gave. There are people that even when I disagree with them, I can say have put serious thought behind their ideas (Wilkinson on Economics/Hitchens on Foreign Policy/Reiham Salam on politics/etc), AA is not one of them. I am not here to listen to vacuous arguments, I suspect most other people are not as well. Which is why I made the suggestion to limit AA's appearance here

The other problem with your argument is that a lot of people wouldn't agree with you on whether or not AA is thoughtful. That's an entirely subjective view. Bob Wright, whose opinion matters most, clearly thinks she's thoughtful or at least interesting enough to diavlog with himself. Unlike Bob or even Mickey Kaus, she's a professional intellectual and academic. She as intelligent or accomplished as those two guys, who are only journalists. So she's got game in my opinion, to use an AemJeff phrase.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Its not so much as I care if AA here, I just won't watch her segments. I am more concerned about the opportunity cost of having her (Every diavlog she does, is a diavlog someone else which is more thoughtful does not do +the person that is paired with AA could probably be paired with someone that would catalyze an interesting exchange of ideas in a way AA does not)

Admittedly, I do not know if the opportunity cost(s) are real,since I do not know what the constraints are for putting up a larger number of diavlogs.

That's how I feel about it too. Pair her up with Kaus!

I don't see what's wrong with what I wrote. I don't think these things are HUGE worries, but I do think they're worth thinking about. Call it concern-trolling if you like--I didn't do it to derail a conversation or to stir a pot. It seemed obviously true to me. The only pain medication was ibuprofin.

Quoting Bobby G: I don't see what's wrong with what I wrote.

Sorry to hear that. I'm sorry that I'm not up to elaborating. It just seems futile in light of your response.

Quoting Bobby G: Oh come on. Leave Mickey alone.

More seriously, there are indeed two real phenomena to worry about: (1) when there's a bunch of like-minded people talking to each other, they tend to make each other more extreme; and (2) when one viewpoint predominates, there's an atmosphere of authority that goes with that viewpoint. That's one of the reasons why liberals hate living in small, Southern towns.

I agree. I do not know if making it public would really alleviate these problems though. Look at AM radio, it is clearly public, yet (1) and (2) still happen to a shocking degree. AFR (A christian talk radio frequency) being the best example. If you call in and disagree with them (Even in a respectful manner) they will roast you alive. Public or not, (1) and (2) will happen in any environment that has a large degree of ideologues that are close minded. Unfortunately, this is a pre-condition that is all too common across the political spectrum.

... primary source, Rush Limbaugh. (h/t: Jim Newell/Wonkette)

aside from you and basman, who thinks she's thoughtful? or to lower the bar, who doesn't think she mostly spews mindless drivel? this last Dv with her made me pretty much lose my ability to have any patience for her ridiculous performance art. particularly when her best riposte to criticism is to question that person's ability to get laid! that might carry some weight with an insecure high school kid that really can't get laid, but come on, that is just absolutely pathetic. I've given her chances in the past, hoping for little glimmers of thought to appear, but i'm over it.

Show me a thread where there is no pushback from more conservative commenters like you, Lyle, Pisc, BooksofDisquiet, Harkin etc., and I'll start to take echo-chamber/groupthink charges seriously. We've had this discussion several times before. You want more equal representation of views on this site, by all means, bring your intelligent right-leaning friends here, and we'll be happy to engage. I too wish there were more considerate and well thought conservative commenters like you and the aforementioned GC who can come here and participate without declaring that the game is rigged within five minutes of pushback from us. Sadly, many of the right-leaning commentors seem to be more content to jump into the fray, get offended when somebody cries bullshit on them and then run back to Althouse/Red State safe-havens.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Show me a thread where there is no pushback from more conservative commenters like you, Lyle, Pisc, BooksofDisquiet, Harkin etc., and I'll start to take echo-chamber/groupthink charges seriously.

I just sent an email to my one conservative friend. Hopefully he'll stick his beak in around here. That said, what do you think of the quality of the conservative commenters here. High? Low? If you think it's low, then they could actually exacerbate an echo-chamber-like effect by making you think that conservatives are dumb whiners.

Quoting Bobby G: I just sent an email to my one conservative friend. Hopefully he'll stick his beak in around here.

That said, what do you think of the quality of the conservative commenters here. High? Low? If you think it's low, then they could actually exacerbate an echo-chamber-like effect by making you think that conservatives are dumb whiners.

I'm curious, what do you think of the quality of the conservative side of the debate in this forum? My apologies if you've already answered it elsewhere. My own feeling, from very limited skimming of the threads, is that they feel hopeless about their chances of winning debates or persuading readers. And when forum participants become hopeless, they tend to become more antagonistic and less constructive. You sort of alluded to this in the post that brendan attacked you over.

I don't think the conservative commenters here are very good, unless mvantony is a conservative.

Quoting Bobby G: I don't think the conservative commenters here are very good, unless mvantony is a conservative.

I would have to agree. You're good, mvantony is good, but then, that is partly (but not entirely) due, I think, to the fact that he's talking about his homeland, which gives him a massive advantage over the ignorant Americans who know virtually nothing about Israel apart from what they gleen from our pathetic media. There have been others, but I think the good ones have all given up. The liberals have Brendan on their (our) side, and that puts the right at an incredible disadvantage. And then there's the apparant imbalance in numbers. (Not totally sure about the numeric advantage, though.)

I should think it's pretty clear that liberals here have a strong numerical advantage, but I've never counted. Maybe it's just confirmation bias on my part.

It's hard for me to say. I haven't really spent much time on more conservative blogs. This was the first site that I ever came to that had a fair amount of back/forth between both sides. I enjoy Bobby's posts, and MVAntony's as well as TaraDavis (when she doesn't get too crazy Libertarian;-) and JuliainIA (on religion, especially.) There's other's that I can't remember off the top of head. And even some of the crazier guys, make good points here and there. And even though they are also participants, Will Wilkinson, David Frum, Eli Lake have all been known to drop in with some high quality arguments. I wish more conservative commenters would follow their examples of fighting on the basis of ideas rather conspiracy claims. Adam/GC was exceptional in that he not only would often make me think about something from a different perspective, but for the longest time he eschewed the take-the-ball-and-go-home whining that is so prevalent among conservative commenters surrounded by liberals. Towards the end though, even he started parroting this complaint to Bob, on a regular basis, and then effectively took his ball and... I will say that I don't quite understand when people claim they

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: [...] As I said in an earlier post, I think the victim-mentality that was once helpful for the GOP when they were truly a minority upstart party who needed to gather the forces, has become a reflexive reaction that many of them when things don't go their way. [...]

You might like this article by Kevin Baker: "Stabbed in the back! The past and future of a right-wing myth." Takes a while to get going because he traces the roots back quite a ways (in Germany), but once he gets to Yalta, it's fascinating. The article was written in June 2006. I'd love to see an addendum from him, in light of Bush's plummeting popularity, the right now denying they ever liked Bush, Sarah Palin's non-stop whining about the media, the current Congressional GOP members, Rush, Norm Coleman, etc., etc.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: It's hard for me to say. I haven't really spent much time on more conservative blogs. This was the first site that I ever came to that had a fair amount of back/forth between both sides. I enjoy Bobby's posts, and MVAntony's as well as TaraDavis (when she doesn't get too crazy Libertarian;-) and JuliainIA (on religion, especially.) There's other's that I can't remember off the top of head. And even some of the crazier guys, make good points here and there.

And even though they are also participants, Will Wilkinson, David Frum, Eli Lake have all been known to drop in with some high quality arguments. I wish more conservative commenters would follow their examples of fighting on the basis of ideas rather conspiracy claims.

Adam/GC was exceptional in that he not only would often make me think about something from a different perspective, AND for the longest time he eschewed the take-the-ball-and-go-home whining that is so prevalent among conservative commenters surrounded by liberals. And then, towards the end, even he started parroting this complaint to Bob, on a regular basis, and then effectively took his ball and...

I will say that I don't quite understand when people claim they want

Wow. Only had a chance to read a couple pages, but this is great. Has he written anything since?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: It's hard for me to say. I haven't really spent much time on more conservative blogs. This was the first site that I ever came to that had a fair amount of back/forth between both sides. I enjoy Bobby's posts, and MVAntony's as well as TaraDavis (when she doesn't get too crazy Libertarian;-) and JuliainIA (on religion, especially.) There's other's that I can't remember off the top of head. And even some of the crazier guys, make good points here and there.

And even though they are also participants, Will Wilkinson, David Frum, Eli Lake have all been known to drop in with some high quality arguments. I wish more conservative commenters would follow their examples of fighting on the basis of ideas rather conspiracy claims.

Adam/GC was exceptional in that he not only would often make me think about something from a different perspective, but for the longest time he eschewed the take-the-ball-and-go-home whining that is so prevalent among conservative commenters surrounded by liberals. Towards the end though, even he started parroting this complaint to Bob, on a regular basis, and then effectively took his ball and...

I will say that I don't quite understand when people claim they

Yes. Thanks Jeff. Good additions. My memory for names is shoddy at best, especially if they haven't been around in a while.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm just adding a shout to a few other conservative commenters who strike me as value added members of this community:

Thus Spoke Elvis, Exeus99, gwlaw99, JIM3CH, sugarkang, jh in sd, Namazu, Hans Gruber, Chef, rfrobison, and of course razib, who has gone on to be a front pager at this point.

Good list; thanks for doing that. There really are a good number of smart, capable conservatives here. The "problem," if you want to call it that, is merely one of frequency. They don't hang out here. The crowd of regulars who live on BHTV tend to be overwhelmingly [s]liberal[/s] not conservative.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Wow. Only had a chance to read a couple pages, but this is great. Has he written anything since?

Pretty good collection on his site, it looks like. Note that lots of articles appear under the Nonfiction tab, not the Column tab, confusingly.

Exhibit A:

currently active users viewing this thread: AemJeff, Twinswords, BJKeefe, Bloggin Noggin, Uncle Ebeneezer

I was just about to say the exact same thing. If everyone on that list was around all the time, I think the balance would be fairly close to 50/50.

Quoting bjkeefe: The article was written in June 2006. I'd love to see an addendum from him, in light of Bush's plummeting popularity, the right now denying they ever liked Bush, Sarah Palin's non-stop whining about the media, the current Congressional GOP members, Rush, Norm Coleman, etc., etc.

This isn't by Baker, but it certainly fits the bill: Glenn Greenwald, in part of a John Cole post on recent right-wing whining. Hilarious.

The predominant attribute of the right-wing movement is self-victimizing petulance over the unfair treatment to which they are endlessly and mercilessly subjected. Last week, C-SPAN broadcast a Commentary Magazine event that almost certainly set a record for most tough-guy/warrior nepotism ever stuffed onto a single panel, as it featured William Kristol (son of Irv and Gertrude), John Podhoretz (son of Norm and Midge), and Jonah Goldberg (son of Lucianne). Jihadis around the world are undoubtedly still trembling at the sight of this brigade of Churchillian toughness.

Exemplifying the deeply self-pitying theme of the entire discussion, Jonah continuously insisted that conservative magazines are so very, very important to the political landscape—indispensably so—because conservative voices are frozen out of mainstream media venues by The Liberal Media, so that poor, lonely, stigmatized

Quoting bjkeefe: I challenge you to name the liberal equivalent of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, or Michele Bachmann. And before you reach for examples of things said about George W. Bush, let me say that those things were fundamentally true, if at times exaggerated. There is no comparison to the fantasies and hate speech coming from the likes of the people I just named, either in what they say about Obama or liberals in general.

Cynthia McKinney=Michele Bachman.
Rick Santorum I like, though admittedly I don't know much about him.
Karl Rove=James Carville
Sarah Palin=... this is kinda tough, but maybe Howard Dean. Or Dennis Kucinich. (Two very different people, I know, but Howard Dean had the profile, and Dennis Kucinich some of the nuttiness. Maybe Al Sharpton.)
Newt Gingrich=Jerry Brown?

Bh.tv isn't only a place for progressives. Contrarians like AA are more than welcome to diavlog here. Clearly Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus find her interesting, especially since she is one of the more well known American bloggers. Certainly a vote of the handful of people who post here shouldn't be determinative of who comes on and who doesn't.

Quoting Lyle: Certainly a vote of the handful of people who post here shouldn't be determinative of who comes on and who doesn't.

You do know that the opinions of a few people—or even a lot of people—here in the forum will never be determinative of who appears on BHTV, don't you?

Praise Jesus.

Quoting Bobby G: Cynthia McKinney=Michele Bachman.
Rick Santorum I like, though admittedly I don't know much about him.
Karl Rove=James Carville
Sarah Palin=... this is kinda tough, but maybe Howard Dean. Or Dennis Kucinich. (Two very different people, I know, but Howard Dean had the profile, and Dennis Kucinich some of the nuttiness. Maybe Al Sharpton.)
Newt Gingrich=Jerry Brown?

McKinney had one nutty idea that I ever heard about (which was in a lot of ways not that nutty at all -- as it turned out Bush did have some advance warning about 9/11), and said maybe one other nutty thing right after Katrina hit; Bachmann lets loose a new one every time she's near a microphone. McKinney has also done some admirable things, like championing human rights and humanitarian efforts both while in and out of office, standing up for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and introducing legislation to release secret files on Martin Luther King. Carville is nowhere near Rove in terms of documented amorality and willingness to use dirty tricks. Not even the same league; barely even the same sport. Dean is about a thousand times smarter than Palin, not to mention considerably more enlightened. He is also not anywhere near

Quoting bjkeefe: McKinney had one nutty idea that I ever heard about (which was in a lot of ways not that nutty at all -- as it turned out Bush did have some advance warning about 9/11), and said maybe one other nutty thing right after Katrina hit; Bachmann lets loose a new one every time she's near a microphone. McKinney has also done some admirable things, like championing human rights and humanitarian efforts both while in and out of office, standing up for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and introducing legislation to release secret files on Martin Luther King.

I bet McKinney's nuttiness equals Bachmann, but I'd have to look that up. As for the advance warning thing, I want to say "c'mon, Brendan!" Bush got advance warning in the sense that presidents always hear stuff about someone on the verge of attacking, without knowing where or how. That's a FAR cry from a conspiracy theory that Bush knew about it, where it was going to happen, when, how, etc. It's possible that, for all I know, Bachmann has done some admirable things, at least from my point of view, though I don't really want to investigate.

Carville is nowhere near Rove

Quoting Bobby G: I bet McKinney's nuttiness equals Bachmann, but I'd have to look that up. As for the advance warning thing, I want to say "c'mon, Brendan!" Bush got advance warning in the sense that presidents always hear stuff about someone on the verge of attacking, without knowing where or how. That's a FAR cry from a conspiracy theory that Bush knew about it, where it was going to happen, when, how, etc.

Possibly. I don't know the details of what McKinney believed about Bush's foreknowledge, and I do think that having her as a gadfly on the 9/11 Commission was probably a net good.

It's possible that, for all I know, Bachmann has done some admirable things, at least from my point of view, though I don't really want to investigate.

I'm not motivated to make her case for you, either ;^), but her Wikipedia page indicates that her efforts both before getting in the US Congress and since have been limited to pushing for creationism to be taught in schools, hating on teh gheys, and something about freedom of choice ... for light bulbs.

You're right. Maybe Mark Penn would have been a better comparison. Of course, unlike Penn, Rove was good at his job for a very long

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/fa...ouse.html?_r=2

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/04/08...ment-syndrome/ I think it’s Althouse’s popularity among conservatives that really gets a lot of liberals. They can’t fathom how such supposedly narrow-minded right-wingers could appreciate the work of a blogress who doesn’t share our political sentiments and often criticizes our party’s candidates. Her popularity on the right shows that we welcome and appreciate those who don’t toe the conservative line, who hold different points of view than our own.

In short, her popularity upsets the left-wing narrative of an intolerant right. So she must be badmouthed to prevent right-of-center bloggers from being seen as respectful of those with whom we sometimes disagree.

Quoting Lyle: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/04/08...ment-syndrome/

Wow. You found someone as clueless as you about why people can't stand Althouse. Congratulations.

Quoting Lyle: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/04/08...ment-syndrome/

I think it’s Althouse’s popularity among conservatives that really gets a lot of liberals. They can’t fathom how such supposedly narrow-minded right-wingers could appreciate the work of a blogress who doesn’t share our political sentiments and often criticizes our party’s candidates. Her popularity on the right shows that we welcome and appreciate those who don’t toe the conservative line, who hold different points of view than our own.

In short, her popularity upsets the left-wing narrative of an intolerant right. So she must be badmouthed to prevent right-of-center bloggers from being seen as respectful of those with whom we sometimes disagree.

Yeah, that's it. It has nothing to do the impression that she's a self-involved attention whore with a penchant for squishing metaphorical grapefruits in random faces on the theory that any controversy ultimately draws more eyeballs her way. Yup, Gay Patriot drives a nail into the coffin of yet another meme with his uncanny insight.

Uh, I think most critics of Althouse from the left don't actually think she "doesn’t share [the right's] political sentiments" or that she "often criticizes [the Republican] party’s candidates"... that's kind of why they don't like her...

That's what makes her a liberal contrarian, and not a liberal apparatchik. Christopher Hitchens and Camille Paglia do the same thing.

Quoting Lyle: That's what makes her a liberal contrarian, and not a liberal apparatchik. Christopher Hitchens and Camille Paglia do the same thing.

I don't think you quite got Pampl's point.

I did not have time before to listen. This is soo fascinating. But everybody has gone off onto this political right wing GOP tangent. Guys, someone out of our ranks is marrying a blogger, a blogger is marrying a commenter! Lets get back to the personal and private, and explore the emotional dynamic of being a commenter. Kind of begs the question whom I would like to marry from this blogging crowd.
I suppose (Glenn Loury is married already, and so is Bob, and Ezra Klein is young enough to be my son, and the other guys talk way too much politics) it would have to be Mickey. Providing Mickey does not mind crossing the Atlantic to go back to the Old Country.

Nah, you don't want Mickey. Unless you want to listen to endless rants on Immigration, Welfare and Unions. I think most of the Bheads in your age bracket are married. George Johnson might be the only one I can think of who is single (as far as I know.)