You don't need an iPod. You can stream it right through your computer here.
But all the passionate people subscribe on iTunes:
April 15, 2007
Audible Althouse #82.
It's a podcast. About Austin, Texas. Omakase. Driving 1235 miles in one day. Don Imus. Torturing a man by telling him he looks like Mr. Bean. Etc.
You don't need an iPod. You can stream it right through your computer here.
But all the passionate people subscribe on iTunes:
You don't need an iPod. You can stream it right through your computer here.
But all the passionate people subscribe on iTunes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Yes, the first 2 episodes have been excellent. It's much harder to write about a good show than a crappy show like "American Idol."
With "The Sopranos," I don't feel competent to talk about it until I've seen the episode twice.
"I'm into emotion"
--but you've never cried in a vLog. The final frontier: Go on a crying jag! And we have to see tears, not just pouting; we need real tears!
That's what everybody wants to see. You've never shown any vulnerability.
Taxes.
You should be paying more. All those freebies---the free hotel rooms, tenure, expense accounts etc.. And, there's no deadline if you apply for an August extension.
Finally, the casual unconcern ---fobbing off alcohol, interestingly, your kids aren't shying away from alcohol either. They take their cues from Mama, and if Mama encourages it...I pray nothing bad comes of this drinking that you laugh off.
No worries.
Ok, if you say so.
Peace, Maxine
To what extent does the difference you perceive Giuliani to have made in cleaning up NYC feed into liking Guiliani as a Presidential contender?
I ask because some commenters, particularly those who are more liberal, often seem to suggest that reaction to Giuliani is premised on his "America's mayor" 9/11 persona rather than his actual record as mayor. Whereas as someone who leans more conservative, and more detail-oriented, I see the 9/11 stuff as just being icing on the cake, and I find his record as mayor far more compelling than the "America's mayor" stuff.
Maxine Weiss said...
"You've never shown any vulnerability."
Wouldn't you say that getting angry - losing one's temper - on-camera is, in a sense, showing vulnerability?
No, anger---an artful outburst---that's performance art. Plus, there was a delay between when the offensive issue was brought up, and when Althouse reacted, so there's a question about lag time.
But tears, real tears, every perfect tear that comes down....the mascara running, that would be particularly lovely.
By the way: These Podcasts need background music and Flickr slideshows. Here's what I recommend.
For music:
http://www.live365.com/stations/nassoul?tmx=1176698231406
For background viewing during an Althouse podcast:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/restaurantinteriors/pool/show/
You're welcome.
Peace, Maxine
Maxine Weiss said...
"No, anger---an artful outburst---that's performance art. Plus, there was a delay between when the offensive issue was brought up, and when Althouse reacted, so there's a question about lag time.
Oh,not this silly canard again. This has been explained over and over again.
And in any event, anger can be a form of vulnerability, because it shows what can push your buttons.
No, wrong again, anger is a wasted emotion---a lot of hot air.
Anger is nothing but glorified sadness and loneliness covered up.
That's why it would be more realistic if Althouse would have a good cry--on video, instead of hiding it with the facade of righteous indignation.
Remember when Pat Schroeder cried on camera? That was wonderful. It's not weakness. The old soap-opera actresses, when you'd see them cry day after day, in close-up. We loved that!
By the way, this is a better slide show with the classical music:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/chandelier/pool/show/
Peace, Maxine
Anger is nothing but glorified sadness and loneliness covered up.
Johnny Lydon might disagree.
I could be wrong, I could be right.
(Anger=mc^2)?
(E=Anger)?
Why am I equivocating? Of course anger is an energy.
Anger is destructive usually, cathartic sometimes, but energetic, always.
I'm finishing listening to the 2d half this morning. Re Giuliani is looking for a way to "marginalize the abortion issue by causing it to be really something that's about what the courts would do and he wouldn't really have control over that as President ... if people accept that, it might might make it possible to get a more socially liberal candidate who's strong on national defense and I'd like that" (not an exact quote, but near enough) --
I don't see much difference between that suggestion and the Casey plurality's exhortation for "the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution." Right now, for all intents and purposes, the Supreme Court is the gatekeeper for abortion; that's been so (and been understood) for many, many years. But that fact and that understanding hasn't "marginalized" the issue, precisely because most voters understand full well that while the President cannot overturn those decisions personally, he or she does appoint those who can. Hence, come to think of it, Justice Scalia's dissenting observation in Casey that the court's decision to declare itself the umpire of abortion policy (and not an even-handed one, at that) "fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since" (emphasis added). I may have misjudged Guiliani's position (or perhaps you and I are each seeing in Rudy's mirror a reflection of our own preferences vis-a-vis abortion jurisprudence), but while I'll accept a candidate who's pro-choice, I'm not really willing to accept one who takes what I think you've concluded is Guiliani's position on Roe-Casey. Whether you've misunderstood or I have is going to be a question of some import in the next couple of years.
If his position is as you've construed it, I think it's very tenuous to hope that position will have the result you think it will have. I suppose the better question is whether you could still support Guiliani if his position on Roe and court appointments turns out to be closer to my understanding of it than to yours?
I don't know if it's the best podcast, but it's quirky, idiosyncratic and unique and I like it - the occasional disagreement notwithstanding.
Egad!! The Return of the Annoying, adenoidal adolescent Theme Song. Send the Prof off on vacation again so she will have to sing it herself.
I don't mean plurality, sorry, I mean the majority opinion. I get derailed into "plurality" because I think of it as a joint opinion. Bad habit of mind.
Simon: Did you listen to the whole WNYC clip, available here?
Ann,
Sure, I listened live, and responded briefly in the comments and in somewhat more depth over at SF.
To be sure, I'm not saying that your interpretation of his position is wrong - indeed, many conservatives are worried about Giuliani precisely because they share your assessment - but that isn't how I'd interpreted his position, I've made some pretty positive noises on my understanding of his position on judges and federalism, and your interpretation makes me worry that maybe I've got my wagon hitched to the wrong horse.
^ Just to clarify the wagons comment - I mean re Rudy, not re Althouse. LOL.
You've never shown any vulnerability.
Nonsense. This blog is a vortex of vulnerability.
Finally listened to the podcast, you mentioned the hearings on pet food regulations.
That's the best thing you'll ever watch on the web.
Sen. Byrd is amazing.
It's indescribable.
Dana Milbank tries, but he leaves out all the good stuff.
C-Span.org has the video up, unfortunately it's only available as an .rtsp file (can be played with real player), and you can't link directly to it.
Just search the 110th Congress link and click on the Sen. Appropriations Sub-Committee Hearing on Pet Food Regulations from April 12th.
Sen. Byrd makes clear his intention (God willing) to run in 2012. I assume he'll get plenty of votes, dead or alive.
The whole video is 2hrs3minutes, but the fun begins at 39:07 minutes in and goes on for better than 10 minutes.
Post a Comment