February 17, 2014

Glenn Loury asks: How does Bill Clinton "get to go around and be an honorable defender of the Democratic Party line, which is a pro-woman line..."

"... when he took advantage of an intern in his office? And, you know, I'm not a pro-impeach-Bill-Clinton guy and whatnot, but I kind of find it hard to see that Rand Paul doesn't have a point there, okay? How is it that the press and everybody else can just forget about the exploitation of women when they're actually exploited and yet are prepared to level their howitzers of criticism on any Republican who might say something that could be construed as anti-woman, who hasn't been messing around with the interns under his charge?"

That's a long question, asked of me, and my answer begins "Well, the simplest explanation..." and I bet you can guess what I'm going to say.



This clip includes material about the Clarence Thomas hearings and the way sexual harassment in the workplace is an equality problem that extends beyond the individuals who might be choosing freely to interact with each other.

99 comments:

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jason said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unknown said...

Not just when a Republican 'says something..'. It began with Stephanopholis asking about contraception during the first R debate. Maintained by the fiction that abortafacient = contraception. Piled higher by Sandra Fluke complaining she couldn't afford a wildly inflated dollar value of contraception.

War on women is a contrived political wedge issue aimed at low information, single women who depend on government which does not admit of consideration of the near balanced pro-life viewpoint of women and the deterioration of the family in blue cities.

SGT Ted said...

Because the War on Women is just the usual bullshit from the Democrats.

What do I win?

PB Reader said...

Because Bill just loves women.

Shouting Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
zeuss said...

"Women" the Abstraction trumps "Women" the Actual Individuals, because feminism is fundamentally a collectivist arrow in the quiver of leftism.

Real life women and their experiences do not matter, only kowtowing to the proper abstractions about women matters.

Shouting Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Henry said...

I don't suppose you answered "because they're depraved."

Shouting Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Illuninati said...

Monica Lewinsky is just one poor woman who was severely damaged by Bill Clinton. Kathleen Willey, who was also a volunteer aide, claims she was sexually assaulted by him. She maintains that Hillary Clinton is the war on women. Here's what she says today about Hillary:
"“The point is what this woman is capable of doing to other women while she’s running a campaign basically on women’s issues. It just doesn’t make any sense. She singlehandedly orchestrated every one of the investigations of all these women [who accused her husband of sexual crimes]. They’re the people reminding us of how sordid this all is.”
http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/clinton-volunteer-hillary-is-the-war-on-women/

Will it matter? Probably not in the least if Zeuss is correct.

A much more damaging line of attack would be the fact that Bill and Hillary began their "public service" poor and are now filthy rich in the tippy top of the top 1%. Just like any ruler of a banana republic they made their money the good old fashioned way -- through politics.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bob Ellison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DKWalser said...

Althouse and Loury have a good dynamic. Based on that snippet, each brought out something interesting out of the other.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tank said...

I have no substance either, but I am laughing too.

Bob Boyd said...

Revisiting the Monica Lewinsky thing is a good reminder for the nostalgic what the Clinton years were like. But I think Hillary would much rather talk about Bill and Monica than talk about:
How Brooksley Born was treated and the economic fallout that we are still suffering as a result of ignoring her warnings.
Violations of campaign finance laws.
Why Sandy Berger destroyed documents from the National Archives relating to Osama Bin Laden.
Pardoning FALN terrorists.
How the "reset" of our relations with Russia turned out.
Benghazi.
Syria.
Israel.
Eygypt.
Her actual accomplishments as a Senator and a Secretary of State.
Kathleen Willey's dead cat.
Paula Jones's trailer court.
Juanita Broderick's lower lip.
Gennifer Flowers.
Commodities trading.

Monica is a relatively benign topic for Hillary.

Hagar said...

Gennifer Flowers
Juanita Broddrick
Paula Jones
Kathleen Willey
Monica Lewinski

And Billy Jeff's behavior with each strongly suggests they were just the ones who came to public knowledge.

However, more fertile gound for investigation might be that though we have had wealthy presidents before, the Clintons are the first to become wealthy from the presidency.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

"Interesting how Shouting Thomas and I are rarely 'taken on' on this blog, especially by the blog owner."

Because the 2 of you go off point, obviously, and I can glance at what you are saying and know it's taking the discussion somewhere other than what I opened up in the post. Either you're deliberately hijacking the thread or you haven't taken the time to understand the post. Why would I respond to that? I see what it is and I don't read any further. You should ask yourself why I don't just delete it.

Ann Althouse said...

I really should delete all this off-point stuff.

Is anyone watching the clip and responding to what is said?

I'm not seeing it.

These videos are a problem. I transcribed some of it to try to draw you in, but text conquers video. I need to learn that lesson.

Pogo is Dead said...

"How is it that the press and everybody else can just forget about the exploitation of women when they're actually exploited..."

Answer: Who, whom?

Kelly said...

"If you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park and you never know what you'll find". War on white trash woman is A-okay.

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

Please keep the thread to the topic raised in the post and the material in the video. If you're not willing to watch the video to get into a position to respond to it, go down to the previous post, which is an open thread, and say what you want there.

This thread got hijacked early on, and I am deleting the material that inappropriately changed the subject.

Lyssa said...

Is anyone watching the clip and responding to what is said?

I find the subject matter really interesting, but it's not practical for me to watch now. I keep reading the comments hoping that someone will say the rest of what was said. I had no intention to comment, though I'm interested in what the comments might say. Not much, so far, though.

Shouting Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lyssa said...

Althouse, if you want to delete what I said about not watching the video but being interested in the discussion for being off-topic, that's fine.

MadisonMan said...

Did you color-coordinate on purpose?

Am I just lucky that my workplaces have always been meritocracies, and not places were sexual predators lurk? Or do I just put off a vibe that shuts that down when I'm around? I've always wondered.

Ann Althouse said...

And Jason, I deleted your comment because it assumed the celebrity of a sometime commenter and some idea of his and it would require a reader of normal familiarity with the world to Google to understand what you are saying. That was, in my opinion, boring and disrespectful of the reader's time. Make your point in words that are comprehensible to my readers. I don't mind interesting allusions, but this wasn't that.

Henry said...

These videos are a problem. I transcribed some of it to try to draw you in, but text conquers video.

I think that's true for a lot of us commenters.

p.s. I figure I'll delete my responses to the off-point excisions now. I sound like I'm scripting absurdist theater.

EDH said...

Althouse made a misstatement in my estimation.

"Anytime it [the "War on Women"] stops coinciding [with the Democrats' interests], they [the media] switch to the Democratic Party."

Actually, as Althouse even alludes, the media are already on the side of the Democrats before the conflict arises.

There's no media "swtiching" to the Democrats.

Rather, the media engages in a "War on Women" with the Democrats when the need arises on behalf of the Democrats.

This is the point Rand Paul and other Republicans must underscore.

phx said...

I don't think the general public sees Monica as all that much of a victim. A willing victim at the very least.

I felt like a pox on both their houses at the time. Now I feel it's time to get over it and let go. Other people can do waht they want of course. But I'll bet many people feel the way I do.

Bob Boyd said...

I watched the videos. I really like these Blogging Heads videos. I hope you won't stop putting them up.

Anyway I think you already correctly answered the question posed.
Implicit in the question is how will it all affect Hillary and I commented on that.

Fen said...

Because the Dem party line for women is pretty much the same as their party line for blacks:

"Get your ass back on the plantation, bitch"

"And put some ice on that"

"You run away again and the evil conservatives are going to crawl up inside your uterus and enslave you"

"Now... make me a samwich"

Fen said...

Is anyone watching the clip and responding to what is said?

I'm starting to but the premise is wrong ("Dems are pro-women") so I had to tap that first.

Fen said...

I really like these Blogging Heads videos

I've never been a fan. Its worse when Insty links to something that looks interesting and I follow it only to find its a video.

I like reading the net. Video is too constrained - you're a captured audience and its a pain to reel back 3 mins to parse/analyze what someone is saying.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Laslo Spatula said...

The elite are self-elected; we then get to choose only of their provided choices. The media, and now the very government itself (IRS as an obvious example) use their tools against anyone outside this selected circle. This circle has calcified: it will not bend, it will not serve, and I no longer believe it will break short of an upheaval of civil war proportions. For now there will be just tiny nibbling at the edges: more under-the-table dealings on the private level to avoid taxes and scrutiny, for one, and the inherent increases of taxes to feed the ever-growing beast -- VAT, National sales tax, etc. People will look at China and Russia as examples of stability, of which the elite would love to emulate. At this point any substantial upheaval will require the dollar to be devalued to post-WWI Germany proportions: people who have lost everything can do desperate things.

While there are many root causes (basic human nature above all) I have come to believe that slavery was the crack in the country's foundation from which it will never recover. That slavery existed while the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution where put to paper will always invalidate those documents as flawed to a number of people, many of whom are the elite: the concept of an underclass was baked in the cake. No matter what progress is made, this scar is picked at decade after decade, and will outlast the Country as we know it. It is still hidden behind much of the political arguments of today (Affirmative Action, welfare, black culture and white), and there will be no solution available because money is now intrinsically involved -- and there is never enough money to soothe the aggrieved. We will continue to argue that it doesn't have to be this way if we will all just come together, but that dream has never truly flowered, and never will.

Through the elite I believe reparations will inevitably come: it may first come as a policy package, but will not be accepted until personal checks are in the mail. This will tear the wound wider: those who believe they should not pay for sins that they are not responsible for, those who believe those sins can never fully be repaid, exactly who gets what slice -- the undercurrents of upheaval will rumble as more checks are written than we can afford. Race will be tied tighter to money, and the scar will present fresh blood.

In many ways the Country was stillborn: we ate the damned apple. Happy President's Day to Hillary and to all.

Bob Boyd said...

I like reading the net. Video is too constrained - you're a captured audience and its a pain to reel back 3 mins to parse/analyze what someone is saying.

Most of the time I feel the same. Watching video takes too long. But Althouse on video is different. How?
Two words: Star Quality

David said...

Teacher, I watched the video.

The problems are ignorance, forgetfulness and indifference. Yes, the press has given the Clintons and the left a gigantic pass on numerous issues. The contrast between how the Lewinsky and Anita Hill matters were handled is only one example.

But it's not as if the basic facts are unknowable. They are very well established. Many voters don't know them, but probably wouldn't learn much even if they were repeated. Others have forgotten, or perhaps dismiss the importance because it was "so long ago." Many others never cared much in the first place, either out of political ideology or because deep down they don't much care about harassment, etc.

My favorite example is the Whitewater tax and business file that had been under subpoena for years. The answer always was that the file could not be found. Then it came to light that some cleaning person had found them on a table in the private quarters of the White House. The files were then produced but likely had been sanitized long before.

This was clear evidence of a crime, an ethical lapse by two lawyers (Bill and Hillary), a coverup and a breach of public trust. It hardly caused a stir. It was well reported, but the public--the non ideological center of the public--just wasn't that interested.

We get what we deserve as a nation in our elections, and so far we have deserved the Clintons.

chickenlittle said...

Lots of dead embodiments of comment in here this AM.

Both Blogging Heads agree that the problem is media hypocrisy and double standard which is old news. The problem is that there is no apparent solution and we must therefore live with it. Therefore people tune out or lash out.

madAsHell said...

What Fen said.

I'm not a fan of video either. Video is for slow readers.....and naked girls.

Bob Ellison said...

Professor, at about 1:30 in the clip, you pronounced "about" in the Wisconsonian way (almost "a boat").

"She [Lewinsky] is a child," says Loury. My wife recently finished nursing school, and she says the current thinking is that people don't really become adult until about age 26.

Lyssa said...

phx said: I don't think the general public sees Monica as all that much of a victim. A willing victim at the very least.

I know that I said that I wasn't going to comment, but phx touches on an interesting issue - victimization (of the oh, I'm so offended variety) is easy. It encompasses everyone and no one. "So and so said something about birth control, I use birth control - he must hate me!"

Actual victims, however, are messy. We see this every time there's one of those sexual assault blow-ups. Everyone made a mistake or two and often deserves some level of blame, but one person had to suffer a disproportionate level of the consequences (as Ms. Lewinski certainly has, though, yes, she deserved condemnation for getting friendly with a married man who was her boss). It's an interesting problem.

phx said...

Lyssa yes, and helping to teach/train/raise people not to think of themselves in terms of being victims is terribly difficult, IMO.

This is a different issue also than thinking of others as being victims. Sometimes it's very appropriate for us to think of others as being "victimized" even when the victim can learn or should learn not to think of themselves that way.

Fen said...

That slavery existed while the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution where put to paper will always invalidate those documents as flawed to a number of people

Yah, thats crap. Cultures EVOLVE. Which is exactly what we did.

One might as well claim the Founders are invalidated because they didn't believe enough in Animal Rights to free their horses cattle and oxen.

phx said...

I admire someone who was assaulted or raped who refuses to think of themselves as a victim and get bogged down in hatred, blame, all the stages of grief that people often go through.

At the same time for me to argue that someone who was attacked in that way needs to transcend their victim status would be very cruel and thoughtless, very unempathetic.

JMO

SGT Ted said...

These videos are a problem. I transcribed some of it to try to draw you in, but text conquers video

I do have to admit that I prefer the internet because of text as the mode of communication, as opposed to TV-like video of people talking. TV and video often makes it about the people talking and not the ideas being talked about.

I prefer transcripts of interviews myself, because I can read it faster, it's all there on a page and I don't have to rewind anything if I miss a sentence, due to my mulling over a point made during the discussion.

I've often thought that those making discussion videos for the internet, like those already on TV talk and news shows, are sort of missing the point of the internet in changing how we trade information and ideas.

Fen said...

Meanwhile, millions of Americans still believe that babies are subhuman and don't deserve the same protections that were denied native americans, blacks and women.

The "tell" is that they always start out by declaring their victims to be subhuman. Thats why its important to note their attempts to make us the "other". Once they do, re-education camps are just around the corner.

Fen said...

I've often thought that those making discussion videos for the internet, like those already on TV talk and news shows, are sort of missing the point of the internet in changing how we trade information and ideas.

Exactly. Its like having someone hook up horse to the front of my Corvette.

Lyssa said...

phx, I think that there's also the idea, though, that we as a society should still condemn people who take advantage of even those who make themselves willing victims. That Lewinski was willing makes it better than an assault, but it doesn't make it near OK.

SGT Ted said...

My wife recently finished nursing school, and she says the current thinking is that people don't really become adult until about age 26."

That's because they aren't forced to by life or cultural circumstances.

John Lynch said...

It's always interesting to hear Althouse speak, because it's completely different from the blog writing.

The videos are very blunt. There's no drawn-out attempt to drag the reader into questioning of whatever Althouse is writing about.

Yeah, it's obvious the media favor the Democratic party as such, not just its supposed ideals. It's gotten much worse. If the Lewinsky scandal happened today I doubt if it would have gotten as far as it did.

Once more, one of our institutions is letting party discipline override its duty to act as a check on power.

SGT Ted said...

At the same time for me to argue that someone who was attacked in that way needs to transcend their victim status would be very cruel and thoughtless, very unempathetic.

It may seem that way, but it is actually very sound and healthy advice. It isn't cruel or thoughtless as it shows the only constructive way forward.

Anybody dealing with PTSD is told this very thing. You can't change what has happened to you, but you CAN change how you react to it.

But, the main reason the Dems get a "pass" on their sexist hypocrisy is mainly because the press covers it up for them or minimizes real sexual harassment by making the claim that the people pointing out the hypocrisy are just being "partisan", as opposed to hounding them out of office with investigative journalism.

The press leads lynchs mobs to go after the GOP and will not do the same to any Democrat. Because the press belongs to that political party almost exclusively.

THAT'S the real reason.

Bob Ellison said...

phx, I agree with you. Applaud the person who transcends victimhood, but don't criticize the person who complains of it.

This thread has me thinking about stereotypification. For example, Lyssa was pretty quiet in the comments here for a while, and now she's back, and I can't see her byline without thinking of her having proudly announced that she gave birth not long ago. It's completely irrelevant to the comments she makes, but my mind makes that association automatically.

That's one of the ways that text rises above audio and video. Straight text tends to strip away assumable stereotypes. Maybe we should all be typing completely anonymously.

phx said...

phx, I think that there's also the idea, though, that we as a society should still condemn people who take advantage of even those who make themselves willing victims. That Lewinski was willing makes it better than an assault, but it doesn't make it near OK.

I understand this too. I think it's a process of education and for many of us that's not going to happen overnight. But you are absolutely right.

Hagar said...

B.S., Lazlo,
The reason that the past slavery is such a big item today, is that the Democratic Party (NYT, WaPo, Pelosi, Corzine, et al.) is totally dependent on the "black vote" as a block vote in order to keep themselves in power and work very hard to keep the mythology afloat.

And it is not a question of whether Gennifer, Paula, and Monica were "victims" or not, but that Billy Jeff's behavior was absolutely unacceptable, regardless of whether some of the women might have been willing participants.

SGT Ted said...

The press leads lynchs mobs to go after the GOP and will not do the same to any Democrat. Because the press belongs to that political party almost exclusively.

THAT'S the real reason.


The demonstration of this is that Bob Packwood was excoriated by the press and forced to resign and Bill Clinton was protected.

Laslo Spatula said...

Regarding the videos / text discussion: I prefer text, but enjoy the excerpted videos. When they get to be an hour long I usually will not find that chunk of time easily available, but the excerpts that boil down to a single-ish topic are much easier to digest.

This is my way of saying I watched the excerpt but not the video. I should've preceded my comment above with more connective tissue: the Clintons can get away with it because they are of the elite -- general laws do not apply to them. This calcification of the elite will prevent any change of consequence to happen.

David said...

Bob Ellison said...
My wife recently finished nursing school, and she says the current thinking is that people don't really become adult until about age 26.


As long as we don't require them to, they won't.

My ex-wife's great grandfather enlisted in the army during the Civil War at age 16. At age 17 he had been promoted to Sergeant and led troops at some of the most hard-fought battles of the war.

Less heroically but no less competently, my father was put in charge of the armaments of an entire fighter squadron in WW II at age 21. He had one year of college and less than three months of training in his job. In part due to his behind the scenes contribution, the squadron had one of the best combat records in the European Theatre.

I had it easiest. I married at 21 and had a child at 22. That adultified me in a hurry.

phx said...

phx, I agree with you. Applaud the person who transcends victimhood, but don't criticize the person who complains of it.

Yes, not everyone's at the same level we might be at. The idea is to help them get there instead of condemning them out of hand because they aren't.

phx said...

And therein you have the transformation of the Republican Party into something relevant once again.

khesanh0802 said...

I am getting the impression that Bill's behavior will be "fair game" - and have a big impact -if Hillary runs. Attacking Bill will not be an in-your-face attack on women, but it will force Hillary to defend behavior that is, in many cases, indefensible. Bill will certainly have a hard time defending himself. The facts belie any excuse he might have. Bill's behavior will be a big distraction and if Hillary goes into "vast right wing conspiracy" mode she will be hooted down.

Don't you suspect there are more sleazy stories out there?

David said...

The videos are interesting because you can see the thinking develop.

Writing is (or should be) developed thinking.

Writing is harder for the speaker, easier for the listener.

So we tend to avoid the videos because they require more time and effort.

This is true only for people willing to and capable of reading beyond the most basic sense. The followers of this blog generally fall into this category.

Smart, but lazy.

Laslo Spatula said...

Hagar said: "B.S., Lazlo,
The reason that the past slavery is such a big item today, is that the Democratic Party (NYT, WaPo, Pelosi, Corzine, et al.) is totally dependent on the "black vote" as a block vote in order to keep themselves in power and work very hard to keep the mythology afloat."

That does not disagree with my comment. My comment concerned that an elite will always view the Constitution as flawed, and slavery is often the first hook they hang their thinking on (women, second). The elite (read as Top Democrats and Media if you prefer) will not change that thinking as it suits their purposes (as you describe). From there I followed to a possible outcome. By describing something I see I am not condoning it; simply holding it up for evaluation.

Laslo Spatula said...

Re: Fen: "That slavery existed while the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution where put to paper will always invalidate those documents as flawed to a number of people

"Yah, thats crap. Cultures EVOLVE. Which is exactly what we did."

Much of my response to Hagar applies here. Left and Right evolved differently; through the elite it is the left's evolution that is pushed as truth. Much of this truth relies on the concept of the eternally guilty America. It will take a great upheaval to change this; my idea of what that might be was my comment.

Ann Althouse said...

"Professor, at about 1:30 in the clip, you pronounced "about" in the Wisconsonian way (almost "a boat")."

A big "almost." I don't hear that at all. Maybe you're used to a bigger "ow" sound, but I don't go to a long "o" as in "oh!"

Brando said...

It really doesn't make sense that the left (and feminists in particular) would waste their credibility on backing the Clintons-- it'd make some sense if that couple were really vital to advancing some feminist cause, but even from the feminist point of view it's hard to see what they get from that sacrifice. It's also not as though there aren't other politicians they could be going to bat for who don't require such hypocrisy. Like, say what you will about Liz Warren, at least she didn't set out to destroy victims of her husbands sexual harrassment.

Fen said...

That Lewinski was willing makes it better than an assault, but it doesn't make it near OK.

I'm always reminded of all the other interns who didn't score job interviews with Revlon or the United Nations because they didn't know "sucking off your boss" would be part of their performance review.

Laslo Spatula said...

Would any other feasible Democrat Presidential candidate have a significantly different wish list than Hillary? I tend to see Hillary talk as a side issue, since I don't think things would be that different than any other Democrat that can run the left's gauntlet.

Fen said...

it'd make some sense if that couple were really vital to advancing some feminist cause

The quid pro quo was a Presidential Veto of a partial-birth abortion ban (as admitted to by NOW)

Think about that - the Left was willing to throw feminism under the bus (they've never recovered their credibility) in exchange for the "right" to deliver a baby headfirst and then kill it before it could finish exiting the birth canal.

You've come a long way, baby!

Now swallow.

Fen said...

THAT is Hillary Clinton's legacy.

Laslo Spatula said...

John Edwards 2016: America, You Have Choices.

Charlie said...

""If you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park and you never know what you'll find""

Wendy Davis?

Zeb Quinn said...

The rumor floating around some places is that Monica is squirreled away busily writing her long-awaited tell-all autobiography, set to be released before the 2016 election. And she's supposedly not too happy with Hillary, either.

Bob Ellison said...

I probably am accustomed to a bigger "ow" in the word "about". I grew up in Arizona. In the southeastern USA, it's a three-syllable word: "a-bay-out". The "out" part is required. In Arizona, the native enunciation (which has blurred hopelessly in modern decades, with immigration) eliminates the middle syllable of the Southern version.

betamax3000 said...

RE: Althouse said "...because it assumed the celebrity of a sometime commenter..."

Commenters can Have Celebrity? Does That Include Paparazzi?

Bob Ellison said...

BTW, since we're way down the thread and off-topic is OK, I keep noticing that white Manhattanites say "can" as "ken". Connecticuttians, too. That seems like an Irish import.

rcocean said...

Viewed the 2nd Time, I was struck that no one mentioned Paula Jones and her lawsuit.

Of course, I could have missed that.

chickenlittle said...

Krakenspiel wrote: While there are many root causes (basic human nature above all) I have come to believe that slavery was the crack in the country's foundation from which it will never recover.

I thought that was what the crack in the Liberty Bell symbolized.

elkh1 said...

Democratic Party line: Lie.

Another Party Line: Democrats are for income equality. Spokesman: Dear Leader and his wife who spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money on separate vacations.

Rubes are rubes, they believe good sounding claims.

Ann Althouse said...

betamax3000 said: "RE: Althouse said '...because it assumed the celebrity of a sometime commenter…' Commenters can Have Celebrity? Does That Include Paparazzi?"

Are you hoping to achieve celebrity through blog commenting? I was criticizing a comment on the ground that it assumed that another commenter was a celebrity. It might be possible for you to achieve celebrity, but expecting to be considered a celebrity is another matter altogether.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The short answer: democracy.

The longer answer: convergent interests.

Jack Wayne said...

And this entire post and comments is an obfuscation of the real problem: the gullibility of the average American. Rand knows what scores is the war on women. So off we go again reliving the whole sex was the issue. But the real problem was that the President lied in a deposition in a lawsuit and denied a citizen her rights. But by all means argue that the real problem is the war on women.

Stupid is as stupid does.

betamax3000 said...

Re: "Are you hoping to achieve celebrity through blog commenting? I was criticizing a comment on the ground that it assumed that another commenter was a celebrity. It might be possible for you to achieve celebrity, but expecting to be considered a celebrity is another matter altogether."

It Struck Me as Funny, the Whole Concept in that Line (Especially Removed From Whatever Context was Originally There), Thus the 'Paparazzi' Addition -- 'Comment Celebrity' as a 'Thing' seemed Whimsically Absurd, Like a Red Carpet LOLCat Award Show or Some Such. Was Tempted to do a Riff on Such, But Figured it'd be a Digression Too Far.

As for the Rest of Your Response, With it Directed at Me, I'm Not Sure if the Tone Intended is Dry Humor or Serious in Intent. Is That How I Am Perceived? Micro-sad, I Guess.

Ann Althouse said...

"As for the Rest of Your Response, With it Directed at Me, I'm Not Sure if the Tone Intended is Dry Humor or Serious in Intent. Is That How I Am Perceived? Micro-sad, I Guess."

Well, you seemed to be asking if it was even a possible thing, and I thought I was just saying that blog commenting could work as a medium of artistry that could reach a level that could make someone a star. Meade was actually the subject of an article in the NYT for his achievements in blog commenting, so I was thinking of that, and I also think it is possible that the way you, for example, and a few others I've seen have developed a way of writing that is specific to blog commenting, and that you might choose this as your format. That's more about subtle artwork, deliberately under the radar, perhaps similar to graffiti efforts.

Fen said...

If you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park and you never know what you'll find

"Wendy Davis?"

Nah, if Wendy is anything, she's an opportunist. She would be working the Hyatt uptown.

phx said...

Betamax3000 is only in it for the money.

Saint Croix said...

The "war on women" meme was not about sex harassment. It was about abortion.

There were two pro-life Republican Senate candidates who were questioned about what a raped woman should do. Instead of saying "emergency birth control," one of them said a raped woman could not get pregnant, and the other one said we must accept it because God intended it.

Those are spectacularly bad answers and they were spectacularly bad candidates.

Ultrasounds, slut jokes, and free birth control were also battles in the "war on women." Almost all of these battles are in regard to Roe v. Wade and abortion. That's the subtext. Liberals can't talk about abortion. They have to use euphemisms (choice, liberty, freedom, women's health, birth control) anything to avoid a discussion of the reality of abortion.

Since the "war on women" was a euphemism for the Subject That Cannot Be Mentioned, Rand Paul was able to hijack it and talk about Bill Clinton's sex harassment. It too could be a battle in the "War on Women." Paul accepted the feminist terms of the rhetoric, and found his bad man who is harming women--Bill Clinton.

The media does not take Rand Paul's argument seriously, because the "War on Women" was never serious. It was always propaganda. It's a rhetorical game, a way of silencing critics of abortion without talking about abortion.

David R. Graham said...

"My wife recently finished nursing school, and she says the current thinking is that people don't really become adult until about age 26."

Schweitzer puts it at 28 and further opines that the break-over into adulthood is transiting a "Road to Emmaus" experience of being grasped and shaken to the core by the power of immanent Divinity, changing attachment from self to God. Anyone not so grasped and shaken, successfully, spends their career as a child, which is the lot of most persons.

26 or 28, the point is Monica was, then, as Loury said, a child. Althouse disagrees, says she was an adult. Only legally, which means customarily, which means nothing at all substantive. In fact, she was a child, which is proven by her "falling in love" with the louse Bill Clinton. No adult would do that.

I read recently -- forget where, and the name -- of Bill telling one of his paramours they must stop because he is falling in love and that he does not do that, must not do that. It may have been Monica, but I forget.

Monica thought she was in love and, given how she understood love, she certainly was that. Certainly also she was old and experienced enough to believe, accurately, that she cared deeply about Bill as a person and with her.

I would guess she knew Hillary and Bill were loyal for mutually personal ambitious reasons -- Hillary for example always knew/knows she had to attach to a strong male personality to herself come into the spotlight -- but that love was not part of that. I think Monica and Bill were "Road to Emmaus" experience for one another and that he backed down and devastated her, who, best I can tell, did not back down but had not courage to accept the Divine call, either.

A tragedy. My sympathy is with Monica.

Inga said...

I love how some here say Soon Yi was an adult when Woody was screwing her, yet Monica Lewinsky was just a child.

Saint Croix said...

26 or 28, the point is Monica was, then, as Loury said, a child. Althouse disagrees, says she was an adult. Only legally, which means customarily, which means nothing at all substantive. In fact, she was a child, which is proven by her "falling in love" with the louse Bill Clinton. No adult would do that.

Let's not make Monica Lewinsky an infant. She's responsible for her actions. She participated in adultery.

Rand Paul and the Republicans are making Monica a child so that Bill is a predator and Hillary is a co-predator. In truth Monica is every bit as responsible for the adultery as Bill Clinton. She's an adult, she has free will, and IIRC she actually instigated the affair.

One of the uglier aspects of feminism is the tendency to blame men for everything. Rand Paul is using this ugly aspect of feminism to do that to Bill Clinton.

This is not to say that we should not feel sorry for Monica Lewinsky, too. She was basically used and discarded for sexual and political purposes. Clinton used her, and then the Republicans used her, and the Democrats destroyed her. Our whole society participated in her destruction. It was very public and very ugly. I can't imagine what her life is like now, what it's like to be mocked and belittled by so many.