January 7, 2007
Suggestions?
I'm doing a BloggingheadsTV with Matthew Yglesias tomorrow. Any suggestions about what we should talk about? And then there's the podcast... what should I be digressing about today?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I look forward to your bloggingheads episode; they are always enjoyable.
If you are not sick of discussing libertarianism, and I certainly wouldn't blame you if you are, it might be interesting to discuss the proposed "liberal/libertarian" alliance that was discussed in another recent episode of bloggingheads, with Jon Chait and Mark Schmitt. Yglesias also posted about this topic on a couple of occasions. It would be interesting to hear your perspectives on how states' rights, federalism, and libertarianism could fused in a positive way with liberalism.
Another topic I would like to hear you expound on is the war and Bush's (likely) plan to escalate the conflict.
Cheers.
Anything but Andrew Sullivan.
The troop surge from the Reid/Pelosi contradiction angle.
Speaking of TV AI starts soon and LA Apprentice. Good stuff to infuriate your critics. Not that you are motivated to do that..
Regarding today's podcast: If you'll be digressing about your fascination "by the divorcee's contempt for the woman who stays in a bad marriage and chooses the problematic form of self-expression that is adultery," I'll be motivated to break out my ipod and give a listen. (Especially if you keep turning phrases like that one.)
How being a high profile life has affected your personal/professional lives
Oops. How becoming a high profile blogger has affected your personal/professional lives.
libraries, of course..
The war escalation will definitely be a topic next week. CT reaction to Lieberman's plan for more troops, and more war will be interesting, especially after telling them before the election that the war would wind down and troop withdrawl would commence this year.
And the sinking Garbage Scowl piloted by Malkin, Conf. Yankee et al, was found to have many leaks. One would hope this Ship of Fools and their habitual polluters would be permanently grounded. A guy can still hope can't he.
I'm with Steve R: anything but AS.
the malkin garbage leaked at launch. my advice to anne would be to find a wedge issue that separates her from the brotherhood/sisterhood of the dogmatic...shouldn't be hard though..the malkins of the world are all puss and no infection.
Squirrels and bats.
Or how 2006 was a year in film when flagellation, mutilation, bloodfests and vaguely sympathetic treatments to paedophiles, were all the rage.
Cheers,
Victoria
So that Yglesis doesn't laugh at you, don't mention hdhouse. Note last comment.
hey allen..it was the nicest thing i could think to say about her.
You should talk about music. Yglesias likes a lot of bands (The Pipettes, Scanners, The Decemberists) that you would probably really like. Also a lot of his bands have political messages so it could segue off into a discussion of politics in music and such.
Blog historians vs. blog memoirists.
I heard Eric Alterman address this briefly in a recent bloggingheads episode and I'd be interested in your perspectives: why is it socially/politically acceptable for conservatives (e.g., Andrew Sullivan, Bill Kristol, commenter David above) to attack people on the left as unpatriotic or supporters of terrorists on the basis of their opposition to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Whatever is the "right" policy, Americans who support the war or oppose the war do so based on their belief that it is in the best interests of our country. But conservatives still (albeit less than a few years ago) conflate opposition to the Iraq War with support for terrorism, which seems to me should carry the same shame as branding your political opponents as Nazis, but doesn't. There is name calling and exaggeration on both sides of any given debate but calling people unpatriotic and disloyal, implying they want their country to lose, seem to be insults uniquely suited to the conservative firebrand.
Post a Comment