September 23, 2005

Me, as interviewee.

Remember that interview I referred to back on August 12th? Well, if you do, you are a strangely intense reader of this blog! Anyway, the interview is finally available: here.



Gerry said...

My comment is that the URLs in both of your links appear to be the same, and I do not think you intended that to be the case.

Ann Althouse said...

I fixed it.

Meade said...

Out with the Daily Show; in with the DailyPage. Splendid job by that Kristian fellow.

My favorite excerpts:

There's a whole real world dimension to this. It's not just that we're all absorbed into our computers and we don't live real life. It actually enhances real life for a lot of us locally...

The left wing bloggers are alienating and hostile. I think that says something about a problem that liberals have generally in getting support. They notice the posts in which you don't agree with them, and try to discipline you into agreeing with them about everything. I find that very off-putting...

But I notice that on the conservative side, they link to you and they're supportive when you say things that they agree with, like supporting the war for example. But when you say things they don't agree with, they don't pick on you, they don't get mad at you, and they don't condemn you. I actually think that's a more effective political strategy...

if you're not against the war, the left just thinks that you're evil. Or stupid...

I'm actually interested in graffiti, I actually like it. I take photographs of a lot of things because I find them aesthetically pleasing. Some of the graffiti is vandalism; it's not right. One of my most viewed photographs on Flickr is of a spray-painted walrus over on a huge wall near the Capitol. That's just outrageous that someone did that...

But, for the most part, I'm a law professor. I've been here for twenty years, so that's my job, that's what I do. The blogging is a hugely important sideline for me that I expect to keep doing the way I've been doing.

You do your profession proud.

Simon said...

I was surprised by something that you mentioned, about the right wing blogosphere being more accepting of dissent than the left wing. I mean, you're right that the left wing is utterly intolerent of dissent. I've frequently written fairly lengthy (by blog comment standards) and respectful dissents (which stands to reason, given that my blog's called "I respectfuly dissent") on some liberal blogs, they frequently seem to either get deleted, never published in the first place (if comments are screened), or there's a pile-on of invective and insults.

But that having been said, you'll remember that a few weeks back there was a lot of inane silliness with many right wing blogs delinking Instapundit because Glenn had the temerity to say something they didn't agree with. Which I thought was absurd, and made me inclined to add Glenn to my blogroll, but the vitriol that conservative blogs will hurl at people who they disagree with is frequently brutal.

It seems to me that both sides are guilty. The difference is that the left wing prolem is hysteria, while the right wing problem is fratricide. Even at a local level, I feel very much aware that there is a push underway to purge people with my views from the party. It's very depressing, in fact.

Ann Althouse said...

Simon: Good points. That was very striking the way Glenn Reynolds was treated over that anti-ACLU thing. All I can say is that I'm puzzled by how no one on the right has ever slammed me. From the right, I've gotten only good. From the left, not counting people who actually know me, only bad. Maybe I'm forgetting some little thing in there, but that's the very stark pattern I've observed.

Simon said...

Maybe it's the application of the theory that only little dogs are noisy dogs. Big dogs don't need to show off. Right now, the GOP is a the big dog. The dems are increasingly marginalized, ineffectual and unable to drive events; even at a time which you'd think was a gift to an opposition party, they seem utterly unable to firmly take and run with the initiative. Hence, they yap and yip and bite at the nearest available pair of heels.

Paul said...

I read the whole interview and found I actually understood it. But the part I like most was this before the interview began, describing how your blog was pitched:

"The active and civil comments pages show the high quality of the readership of the Althouse blog."

Well, there you go. And they don't say "most" either.

Chris said...

I'm sure there are people on both sides who act like idiots, depending on what their particular pet issue is, but it does seem like the left is more hostile.

It could be just because they are out of power, but I think it may go a bit deeper than that.

I think you just have to look at leadership of the respective parties. It is clear from any objective standard that the republican leadership is less extreme right than the democrat leadership is extreme left. I mean Bush has created massive new entitlement programs, he is friendly with the illegal immigrants, and is frankly a complete and total spendthrift. While the democrats oppose any cuts in just about anything and totally refuse to consider even any moderate restructuring of social security.

But that's just my point of view on the matter.

Then there is the fact that most of the people on the left that I know are more politically active than those on the right, in terms of trying to convince other people, or protests or anything like that. People I know personally on the right treat politics as a more private matter.

But that's just a personal anecdote.

Simon said...

[Bush] is frankly a complete and total spendthrift

How far did you have to stick your tongue in your cheek to type that, given the rate at which Federal spending has grown in the previous five years?

Chris said...

How far did you have to stick your tongue in your cheek to type that, given the rate at which Federal spending has grown in the previous five years?

What do you mean by that?

n. One who spends money recklessly or wastefully.

Seems to fit to me.

Simon said...

Interesting. Where I'm from, it means completely the opposite - someone who is carefull and cautious with money.

If your definition is right, I retract my previous statement with an apology.

Chris said...

It is an odd word, in that it's definition is the exact opposite of what it SOUNDS like, but that is the definition.

Long story short the confusion arises from a difference between different meanings for the word 'thrift'.

'thrift' used to just mean 'wealth' generally iirc, and a spendthrift was someone who spent their thrift, or wealth. Thrift also is a term for a type of savings and loan bank though, so the term could also have originated by meaning that someone spent the whole bank, if you look at it that way.

Now that thrift more often refers to being wise in spending money, the word spendthrift doesn't quite fit with its definition.

IANAP though(I Am Not A Philologist).