January 19, 2007

"Who's the Conservative Now?" - a new diavlog.

I'm on Bloggingheads.tv again, this time in an extra-long diavlog with Bob Wright. So set aside an hour and a quarter and launch in, or proceed segment by segment:
The scourge of anti-Althousiana (03:04 minutes)

Iraq: Hangings, Hillary, etc. (13:48)

A Gore-Obama ticket? (05:37)

Non-Barack-backing blacks (04:17)

The Duke Case: Race, gender, and jocks (09:31)

Ann the feminist vs. Bob the reactionary (20:45)

The American Idol freak show (11:52)

11 comments:

1918news said...

Where in the blogginheads agreement does it recommend sitting in front of your "wall of books"?

Simon said...

When you say that you don't think Congressional Democrats can or will pass anything binding re Iraq, do you mean that you think it isn't politically feasible ("they can't if they want to get re-elected") or that you think they, the democrats qua the controlling majority in Congress, lack the Constitutional authority (Biden's position)?

LOL at Bob's comment about getting some bad feedback from the first BW/AA diavlog. I think Bob's great, but he scares the hell out of me. ;) I can never quite tell when he's kidding. He does rather seem to have backed himself into the corner of supporting the surge though, dudn't he?

Maxine Weiss said...

Too many books.

All those books----how distracting for the viewer.

And, what on earth is She laughing about? And yet, He never laughs.

Granted, I only watched the first 3 minutes, and as usual without sound, but still...I can usually, in most cases get the gist of it.

Not this time.

QUESTION:

1. If the University didn't provide dental....would Ann be so eager to show her teeth?

2. Where are Robert Wright's teeth? I can't find a single picture of him with an open-mouth smile. You'd think a published author could afford dental.

Too many books, and not enough teeth.

Peace, Maxine

Daryl Herbert said...

Very weird. I just read Mr. Wright's article (Feminists, Meet Mr. Darwin). I went back to find it in order to post a link here, and it's walled off (subscribers only).

Well, it's a good article. Fearless, even (I imagine professional feminists grievance-mongers consider Wright to be an enemy of feminism more dangerous than Pat Robertson)

Daryl Herbert said...

Insofar as your treatment of the Duke Profs:

You were way, way, way too deferential to your colleagues. They certainly created the impression the accused were guilty.

And when you sign your name to a public statement with 87 other names, and then a second time with the same names, you are implicitly endorsing the relevant things those 87 other people did publicly between your two signings. You cannot escape the association (unless you explicitly deal with it, but none did).

I'm going to be more skeptical of all rape accusations in the future. Not only has this case reminded men that false accusations happen, it has illustrated to women just how far they can get with a false accusation. And illustrated to college professors who want to tear a campus apart with divisive issues just how successful they can be with baseless, craven, despicable pronouncements of guilt. The same goes for the leftist college students who made "wanted" posters of the lacrosse players (the same left-wing creeps who still think Mumia is innocent)

Anonymous said...

I predicted weeks ago, along with others, that Hillary would loose her Kathleen Willy stalker private detectives on Obama and we'd see. Well his Muslim ties are now there for all to see. Let's see how this card gets played.

Jacob said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jacob said...

Wright smiles here.

Simon said...

Daryl, that's a different issue. Whether the profs behaved appropriately in signing that letter or not is really quite separate to the question of whether one of them can be sued by their students on a tenuous theory of retaliatory grading when it's apparent that the poor grading is in fact a consequence of their failure to attend class, a significant and pre-announced component of the final grade.

It's perfectly possible to think that the professors' conduct in this sad litany was poor, and that the plaintiffs have been done over by this experience, and even think that they might have remedies available against the prosecutor or accuser, yet still think that a lawsuit against the prof is misguided.

Christy said...

I've been inferring for a couple of weeks, and you make explicit in your divalog (intentional spelling,) that you have become the troll in your own blog, more interested in stirring up controversy and traffic than in idea exchange. Althouse's model is more WWE than De Stael now, huh?. Thanks for making us feel special.

Daryl Herbert said...

Simon, I wasn't referring to the retaliatatory grading (basically a private matter between the student and prof), I was referring to other public statements about the rape case made by individuals in the G88.