Iraq inspires Arab romanticism (as Isaiah Berlin predicted and Doug Feith didn't) (07:13) McCain is yesterday, Hagel is today. Giuliani tomorrow? (07:57) Romney's ecumenical appeal (02:18) Justice Kennedy begs for love and money (09:33) Britney shaves head, Anna Nicole completes career (09:22) Why Edmund Burke would like "American Idol" (04:56) What do women want? Not Bloggingheads.tv? (13:07)
February 21, 2007
It's me and Jim Pinkerton on Bloggingheads.TV!
Enough with the Eric Alterman on Bloggingheads. My diavlog is up now. I'm gabbing with the estimable Jim Pinkerton.
Topics (with times):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
Re the comment on flip flopping ("it's not flip flopping if..."), the point could be refined a little more: I wouldn't say it's flip flopping to change your mind. It's flip flopping to change your position purely out of electoral expediency. Flip flopping is pandering. Of course, by that definition, Mitt may well be a flip flopper. But in this race, he's got plenty of company - Hillary levels that threat at him at her peril.
I'm not ready to write off Giuliani, and with all due respect to him, I'm left with a distinct sense of doubt as to whether Jim understands what kind of judges that someone like me wants, and that conservatives think they want.
I also think you're perhaps over-optimistic about cameras encouraging Justices to quit (I was never pleased with this suggestion on a normative level, but on further reflection over the last year, I've come to think it's outright unconstitutional); if years of relentless criticism from the academy hasn't pushed Justice Thomas off the bench yet, I doubt he's going to jump ship because of a critical comment about his weight in Us Weekly. And in any event, it seems to me that it'd be far better way of resolving Justices clinging to power to just step up to the place and pass an amendment that provides Justices with X year (where x is anything between 16 and 24 years - my preference is 18) non-renewable terms, followed by retirement on full salary. That would eliminate the emerging de facto age requirement and open up a field where people who really ought to sit on the Supreme Court -- Kozinski and Easterbrook spring instantly to mind -- aren't effectively estopped just because they're not going to serve for thirty years.
Lastly, I think Pinkerton's a brave man to bring up CSPAN in defense of cameras.
BTW, is that one half of the $300 pair of scarves that you're modelling there?
It's 2/3.
It's too hard to pass a constitutional amendment, but I would oppose your suggestion anyway. I don't like tampering with the original structure, it's worked very well to produce independence, and I don't want presidential campaigns run with the knowledge of who's leaving and when.
"It's 2/3."
LOL - no offense intended, then. ;) I didn't mean to suggest it looks less valuable than it is. ;) I'm a hetero male, it's half the battle to notice you're wearing a scarf. ;)
I don't entirely agree that it's too hard to pass an amendment, but that's an argument for another day; the point is, I don't want to oversell the amendment argument - I'm not going out to bat for it here. I'd share your skepticism about amending a system that works (besides - there are at least three good arguments in favor of life tenure), and the point is just that if the goal is to reduce dotage tenure, there are better ways to do it. But doesn't not "want[ing] presidential campaigns run with the knowledge of who's leaving and when" lose some cachet when Presidential campaigns are already turning (and will continue to do so until Roe's overturned, I believe) in large part on the kind of Justices the candidate will nominate? No matter how illogical, the assumption seems to be fairly persistent that whoever wins the next election will get to nominate at least one Justice, which means that the issue dominates campaigns already.
Enough with the serious stuff, I say Bill Gates should adopt Britney (and her children), that would solve so many problems.
You were a little too much of a talk-show host in this episode- you let Pinkerton dominate a bit, and more volleyed questions towards him. It was still good- BH is always good- but a bit more gentle.
My favorite Althouse-episode of BHTV was the Jonah Goldberg episode, even though I thought you were wrong, just because you were so openly combative. It was fun! But Pinkerton is rather affable, so it's hard to raise one's dander too much. Proposal: more excitable BHTV guests!
Whatsisname says TV is dominated by women, but for how long has that been the case? (Is it even true now, or was he just riffing? SHHH!) Was it true in 1970, or 1980? Does the dominance of TV by women date quite recently, like from the emergence of the internet? Men would presumably have decamped for a medium with more nekkid chicks, or that involves newer gadgets.
I think that theory's an absolute crock for a wide variety of reasons, and plausible for essentially none that I'm aware of, but it's a pretty cool theory anyway. I like it. Regardless of what they say about it, I'm gonna keep it.
Steve: I let him dominate the first segment, because it was his topic, and I didn't have much to say about it, but after that, looking back on it, I saw myself interrupting a lot and talking probably more than 50% of the time. That said, I do find it hard to get into disagreements with Jim. And you're right that it was much more natural to get into disagreements with Jonah.
I made the comment halfway through the segment- and you did talk more than half the time at the end, so chalk that last comment up to hastiness on my part.
One possible suggestions for BH: more props! Your use of the pen was almost Kaus-like in its hilarity (the moose, the Barbie/Ann Coulter doll, the roses).
Just to say that I think Jim Pinkerton is very cute.
Even that David Brokaw snuffle he has, doesn't faze me.
Cheers,
Victoria
Quoting XWL's link to Drudge:
Among other things, Hollywood and music mogul Geffen had told Dowd, "God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton?"
Oh come on.
If you're running for President of the United States, you HAVE TO BE NAKEDLY, maniacally, almost otherwordly ambitious.
What the hell, David Geffen.
Where were you in the 1990s, when you were raising millions for your pals the Clintons?
Or, is it okay for a man to be ambitious, but not his presidential aspirant spouse?
Or is it that Geffen only wants to be back the most dishy, charismatic alpha-male in the room?
Fortunately, this quote made up for the other one, in a big way:
Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
Ouch.
Cheers,
Victoria
Cheers,
Victoria
You were a little too much of a talk-show host in this episode- you let Pinkerton dominate a bit, and more volleyed questions towards him. It was still good- BH is always good- but a bit more gentle.
Yeah, I agree with that too, Ann.
Especially after the Wisconsin NPR burst of vinegar and piss from you, I wanted to see more of it, especially on video.
Not that it wasn't fun, though.
Cheers,
Victoria
I think the deal with men droning on and on about a single topic in a "grim and remorseless and heavy" way, may not be so much an attempt to create an impression of being knowledgeable, as an unselfconscious flow of enthusiasm for the actual topic.
Sometimes people say things because they want to communicate what they're actually saying.
Well, the "geeky" ones do, anyway.
What was that thing about women uttering three times as many words per day as men?
Sorry, Pinkerton falls way short on substance. I wanted to cut my arm off 2 minutes into that 7:00 clip on Arab nationalism. Good Lord. At least Alterman takes a stab at why.
There is an old Japanese proverb that loosely says 'The parent of a fool thinks his child is wise'. Ann, we could use you on this side of reality. It's not 2004 anymore. No harm no foul.
i'll pass. thank you.
I had to leave half-way through earlier this evening and only finished it a moment ago. So, I did notice the difference others have mentioned. That said, I agree with Ruth Anne. It seems to me that you are more comfortable.
Unlike some others here, I am not particularly interested in a lot of fireworks or heavily armed combat via repetition of talking points everyone has already heard. Those pseudo-exchanges are everywhere on television already.
A pleasant conversation while talking about issues of the day is so rare that I really enjoy these moments even when I disagree with much of what is being said. Slides and music would only distract from the purpose IMO, and veer the conversation towards prepared text and not spontaneous responses.
Then again, the bloggingheads site itself is in desperate need of a better layout. It is not pleasing to the eye, and quite cluttered.
HD can only spout hate, Seven. HD was bred that way. Realizing her mistake, HD's mother is demanding an extremely late-term retroactive abortion.
HD's mother is demanding an extremely late-term retroactive abortion.
Nooo, my darling IR, not there...
Cheers,
Victoria
Too much vinegar there and you would've been accused of being "strident."
Yeah, actually, Ruth Anne is right.
Sometimes one can take passion on the radio, because our visual cues are missing, and therefore, you can imagine certain things, which TV merely confirms.
Cheers,
Victoria
My diavlog is up now.
I'm waiting for the 'divalog'. But don't hurry: it's Lent. I'll hang on 'til I've got it back.
Pinkerton is going to shed new light on what? The professor and Gilligan can talk about the Minnow for hours and it casts no light.
I always wonder when someone has nothing to say that the rightwingies dutifully trot out to hear it.
I've got one word for you. Plastic.
Peter Palladas said...
"I'm waiting for the 'divalog'."
There's only been one of those, and it spawned one of my few major disagreements with Ann.
(I claim coinage of "divalog," though, even if it seemed obvious at the time. ;))
don't worry victoria...internet ronin is entirely off my radar screen. as my grandmother used to say "he makes me no nevermind". and by the way you asshole...my mom died a year ago yesterday...
so now you have made this personal. very personal.
Althouse,
You need a women to talk to.
Most of your Male Blogginghead partners seem unable to disagree with you in an intelligent or interesting manner. They either wimp out ("Yes, Ann you're absolutely right") like Pinkerton and that other wuss, or they become incoherent and consumed by rage; like Goldberg.
Why not get Coulter, Charon or Malkin? Now that would be interesting.
Pablo - I vote for Mary Katharine Ham! ;)
Post a Comment