August 15, 2010

I talk with Byron York about Tiger Woods, Dr. Laura, Michelle Obama, Steven Slater, Al Franken, the Prop 8 same-sex marriage decision, and the Ground Zero mosque..

This one's called "The Luckiest Diavlog on the Face of the Earth" for reasons that become apparent near then end. Also, somewhere in there the tornado sirens (in my town) go off.



ADDED: If you need a non-Flash format, go here and pick MP3/MP4.

42 comments:

JC said...

Ann--

Question: you say states must legislate on legitimate objects of government. (Obviously I agree). I've always considered what we call traditional marriage to be just such a thing. But if we divorce marriage from its procreative context, what legitimate object of government does marriage pursue? Should the state be legislating on the basis of anything as ephemeral as the human heart?

Paul said...

Ann, that screen capture of you is very fetching!

Royal Tenenbaum said...

Wait - a hard-line when it comes to the Guaranty Clause but a dismissal of a state's traditional right to allow morals to influence (or even be the basis of) legislation?

Alex said...

Bloggingheadstv.com is a Flash site, so I can't view the videos on my iPad.

Penny said...

When Althouse looks confident on Bloggingheads, I nearly always feel better.

haha

Not for long though...

Enlightened script please?

Ann Althouse said...

@Alex Check my update. There's a solution.

@Royal T No, I concede the case law is against me on the Guaranty Clause but give an opinion about what I think *should* have happened. On the morality as a legitimate interest point, I am only saying what is in the case. I never expressed an opinion about what I thought the answer *should* be. Why the difference? Mainly, I was trying to be clear and not too expansive. That's hard to do without dominating the conversation. Also, I had an echo in my ear the whole time I was speaking, so I'm surprised it came out at all coherent.

Ann Althouse said...

@Paul Thanks!

@Penny... How so?

Did you folks notice I was on the left for this one?

Fred4Pres said...

That was good. Ann, you did look fetching (as described by Paul above). It is nice when your computer camera favors you.

Although I was at moments having flash backs to Dr. Melfi talking to her therapist Dr. Eliot Kupferberg (Peter Bogdanovich) on the Sopranos.

Fred4Pres said...

I agree Ann, if the only decision was landmark status, the decision of the NYC board should not be effectied by option vs. ownership. But if it was more than that, say tearing down the building, then Byron is probably correct. A false statement from the promoters may give the board the ability to back out of any decision (particularly if it starts looking politically controversial).

Penny said...

And my message to Bob Wright, who I totally LOVE!

Quite the "artist" today.

Mind if I say your colors are a bit muddy?

Irene said...

I did notice you were on the left side.

I was like, "Hey, she's on the other side."

Irene said...

But it's your right side.

Penny said...

@Penny... How so?

Let me ask YOU a question in response, Althouse.

If you had ten links to show both your fans and your foes "The Best of Althouse"....Where might we find this particular Bloggingheads on that list?

Penny said...

Bob Wright?

Ha ha, did you think you could get away with blaming Althouse for this monstrosity of "Waste of Time"?

danielle said...

the bloggingheads videos with you on the left are always so boring ... no fun conflict/disagreement. what's the point of that ?

also, I disagreed w/ your view that Michelle wanted a more meaty policy role in the white house. honestly, i think she does mostly what she wants.... i dont think she has been repackaged. i do think they tried to highlight the side of her that is 'mom in chief' ... i bet the otherside of Michelle is sort of that cool girlfriend. I dont think she has political aspirations like hillary did.

Penny said...

Well, except for that larger point you made. ;)

Does anyone else imagine Bob Wright massaging his own brain til it's raw and eventually edible in California?

traditionalguy said...

Good Bloggingheads. I enjoyed York's style of interrogation as he waded through distracting legal dilemmas down to the bottom line political issue surrounding Prop 8's death for being "illegitimate" government of, by and for the people.

traditionalguy said...

Michelle Obama has no interest in government work. She is only interested in ruling since she now has the money power that you don't have, sucker. Have you ever re-distributed a trillion dollars?

ken in sc said...

What was said in this interview? Please provide a transcript. I listen to music while I browse the web. If I wanted to watch TV, I wouldn’t be on the Internet.

KV said...

Who cares?

Penny said...

"Have you ever re-distributed a trillion dollars?"

No, trad guy. I'm allergic to zeros.

Maybe in my next life?

sunsong said...

I enjoyed that. I hope uou are right about the Prop 8 case. I think it would be a fun ending if it stopped with CA with same-sex marraige legal there...

...leaving millions of people time to digest the idea that gays have the same liberties as everyone else - regardless of what someone's religion teaches.

rhhardin said...

Byron York is a too take-charge to make it work.

As if he has the paragraphs generally planned out, and has an eye on moving on at all times.

The Tiger thing broke him up but he wouldn't break up, an omen right at the beginning.

The injury is to all marriages, that just lost their word to a judge. They thought there was something man-woman about it, a particular dynamic and mystery of difference.

deborah said...

York is a favorite of mine, but except for the law lesson, which I'm still foggy on, this was pretty much a snooze.

deborah said...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/30225?in=00:33&out=01:01

pm317 said...

@paul, fetching?

more like coquettish..
what was all that laughing about?

Trooper York said...

There is only one York who is important.

America's Politico said...

Ann, great show as usual. You are the star of blogosphere. Keep it up.

N.B.: Obama/Biden will win again in 2012, because GOP has no leadership or vision for that matter.

deborah said...

Peppermint Patty?

deborah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PoNyman said...

Your explanation of rational basis was excellent, very clear.
This brought to my mind a question as to who writes about the meat of US Law in layman's language, but not just as a primer. Something like Sagan, Asimov, and Friedman have done in their fields.

Sixty Grit said...

America's Pile-o-crap - you need to learn English. Trust me on this. Based on your lack of an article before the word "blogosphere", I assume you are from Asia. Please let us know where you are from, and why you think you are America's anything. You are, in fact, a communist stooge.

Sasha Amorosa said...

Interesting diavlog. I especially learned from the segment about Michelle Obama. What I think, though, is that Hillary got more and more popular because she deviated from the First Lady stereotype, and Michelle vacationing in Spain, even if at a 5-star resort, is not a big deal for dignitaries, better be safe than sorry, and the prices in Spain must be reasonable considering their economy.
Michelle being in Spain sends a global signal of international inclusivity, at a time when America is sometimes regarded as insular.

LilyBart said...

Re: your comments on Michelle Obama.

Ann, You seem to assume that if we didn't like Michelle Obama 1.0, its because we don't like our first ladies to be 'powerful women'. I think Michelle 1.0's problem is not that she is a strong woman, but that she is a strident and yes, bitter woman. She has had many great opportunities in her life, but is filled with complaints about it and seems to feel somehow cheated.

You feel she failed as Michelle 2.0 because she was forced into too feminized a role which 'chaffed' her. The problem with Michelle 2.0 (IMO) is that she was sold to us as something she was clearly NOT, and we could see that with our own eyes. She is NOT a fashion icon (she doesn't have the figure or the fashion sense for it). And she is not the 'gracious lady'. This just doesn't work for her. She had to be complicent in this strategy, and it just doesn't work.

Also, the constant lecturing us about eating right and being charitable - people don't like to be lectured, and this feeds into our feeling that she is a harsh person.

Also about the lecturing - she doesn't appear (publically anyway) to have great eating habits herself. Also, when she and her husband where making an AGI of $200K - $250K/yr, they hardly gave any money to charity. So, in my view, and in many others, her lecturing is tiresome and hypocritical.

Royal Tenenbaum said...

@ Ann,

I agree - case law is against you (and I) on the Guaranty Clause. And I do think you are correct on that.

As to the Judge Walker opinion, what are your thoughts? I'm not convinced he applied minimal scrutiny - seems more to be a type of heightened scrutiny.

rhhardin said...

York wasn't buying, by not allowing as possible, the Althouse theory of feminine rebellion.

The fruits of repression are shoes.

rhhardin said...

Of course, York is an official person, and has to watch that he doesn't appear to buy into stereotypes about women; that might cause an uprising ending in having to seek a new position.

Duncan said...

Ann, Don't all malum in se laws have a moral base?

Also, I didn't get the sense that the Prop 8 defense rested on the immorality of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. It rested on the superiority of opposite sex marriage making it worthy of state support.

For example, walking in the woods is considered superior to drinking in bars (as forms of rec) so the state subsidizes one and disfavors the other with regs and taxes.

Also no one made the fertility argument. I know other cases have disfavored that argument but that was before we recognized the population bust and the Muslim hordes problems.

Got to pump up fertility.

deborah said...

"The fruits of repression are shoes."

Althouse is repressed?

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann, Don't all malum in se laws have a moral base?"

The law against murder punishes malum in se, but the injury to others is there in addition to our moral disapproval of it (which is itself based on the injury to others). The problem I'm talking about arises when the ONLY basis for the law is to express moral disapproval. (I'm just tracking the opinion in Lawrence here, not saying I agree that morality alone is a legitimate basis for a law).

The Crack Emcee said...

I just watched about all I could take of this:

You were both doing fine until you got to Dr. Laura. You, Ann, were even impressive in describing why one might listen to, or call, her ("We might need that") but you totally lost me - in a giggling fit - as you imploringly wondered aloud "Why would she - why would anybody want to say the whole word?!? "

Damn, Woman, ain't you an American? I mean, I can't really identify with you and Byron York, but I'm trying. Can't you try to see my friends and I use the whole word and don't appreciate being told what we can do with our own damn mouths - because you're not suggesting what we can't say in polite company or implying to even treat us like smokers with designated areas for our comfort but (and this is the juicy part) assuming you can establish white control over us for ever - As the Buddhists like to ask, "What are you afraid of?"

I'm afraid you're establishing a double standard which is wrong. It's racially discriminatory (against whites and blacks for different reasons) it's stupid and it's going to backfire. Coming from a culture that loves to play with words and ideas hard enough to establish cultural currents (Police=Pigs=5-0=The Po-Po's, etc.) I think there's something book-burningly fascistic about attempting to rid the world of words you don't like. Words don't live or die that way. You know that. And why do you want to mess with the black and white Americans who are most comfortable with each other - not in avoidance - but in a manner that maturely speaks to the ultimate acceptance of the foolish nature of our shared history, and not altogether negatively either, because, all in all, good ol' enlightened us got the spoils of all their efforts, no matter which side they were on? We're Americans. You're implying there's something wrong with us - the real us - as Obama does. Coupled with the claim you want an honest dialogue. I don't see how the establishment of this particular rule somehow turns you into Fred Friendly on one of those old PBS roundtables. When you, too, want everybody tip-toeing around what we can say, just like in slavery days, when we're already doing fine without you. We're Americans. We listen to what somebody says, not how they say it.

There's just too many frames of reference in this country for this "I'm so offended" nonsense.

deborah said...

What if we had an 'everyone use the n-word day,' like 'everyone draw mohammed day'? You know, like Lenny Bruce said, it's only an insult if you think a word can hurt you.

It would be funny if by the end of the day everyone was laughing uproariously at how stupid it is.