Glenn and Ann finally speak to each other (01:31)
The perils of discussing ethnicity in law school (14:47)
Are we really all that politically polarized? (04:49)
Dr. Helen joins the show and talks about abused women... like poor Ann (04:35)
Creepy chatroom guys and blogging feminists (06:59)
Watching reality TV... (04:46)
...and videotaping reality (09:01)
१० मार्च, २००७
It's me and Glenn Reynolds...
On Bloggingheads.tv. With special guest, Dr. Helen. Topics (and times):
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५८ टिप्पण्या:
"Heh"!- this'll drive the trolls wild!
I'm glad to see you took my advice and appeared opposite Dr. Helen.
Ah, but you should have gone all the way as I suggested and blogging headed with her at a gun range.
That really would have driving up both of your blogging heads tv Q.
Frankly, I admire you for your ability to withstand the daily insults of having idiots like Fen, Sloanasaurus, Gahrie, and Simon decompensating in your comment threads. I know that I would try to disassociate myself with that.
So, it was probably do to the quality of the voice connection Ann, but at times, there was something distinctly "Ellen Feiss" like in your responses.
If you know what I mean.
Well, hopefully that will make all the nerds love me.
In the segment about blogging feminists, I think you were right about Marcotte et. al., and their vicious attacks on others and their unrealistic demands that the world be forced to be nice to women.
But later, I was still left with your apparent contradiction of how you can defend AutoAdmit while demanding of Sadly, No! that they stop letting commenters impersonate you.
I know you stated that you weren't you didn't think Professor Leiter wrote in the AutoAdmit threads about you, but that you couldn't tell, but I think you really do know. And I also didn't hear you calling on AutoAdmit to stop allowing people to impersonate Professor Leiter.
I also see a contradiction and goal post shifting in your comments about Valenti. You didn't just attack her and the other bloggers for being present with Clinton. You specifically attacked her for her specific pose that you felt accentuated her breasts in the picture.
You and Helen both hypothesized without evidence that the left thinks that the right is a bunch of suppressed prudes offended by breasts, but your position has been that feminists are not allowed to call themselves feminists and yet pose in anything but a stooped over breast minimalizing position for a photograph.
You apparently think there is some contradiction between being a feminist and posing for a picture, or being a feminist and being proud of your looks.
You politicized Valenti's pose without actually checking in how Valenti or other feminists that associate with her think about "posing" or bodies or sex in general.
Basically you and Dr. Helen were just like Amanda, et. al., putting yourself in the position to judge how other women's definitions of feminism comport with your own definition and then saying the other folks are ridiculous and you are correct.
All of you are just involved in some sort of power game, when what you could be doing is acknowledging the contradictions and conflicts that have become part of feminism in the past 25 years.
And you fail yourself and your readers when you don't acknowledge your own mistakes and instead shift the goal posts.
Body Language: I couldn't take my eyes off Dr. Helen's .....elbow.
She seems to be elbow-ing her way in there. In all fairness, it's a tight spot; and, under normal circumstances, that would be very exciting for a supposed alpha-male like Glen Reynolds.
And yet, if you look at the body language between Glenn and Dr. Helen, he's a bit squished, and she's trying to elbow her way in.
She looks like Kim Delany. Aggressive. The obvious cleavage, and I'm getting a very distinct Lessie vibe from her---Dr. Helen.
You never see Ann Coulter with cleavage. Coulter might wear short and tight ensembles, but never obvious low-cut things. And then the aggressive elbow action, and hand gestures....
Nothing other than the differences between blonde and brunette...
...or something more going on?
Nothing gets past me, including the obvious stemmed glass with pink liquid; the perfunctory sipping on camera. --Althouse clings to her coy affectations to add variety and visual interest?
Peace, Maxine
So is it sexist to say Dr. Helen's a hotty?
Well, she certainly plays "The Brunette" to a hilt.
Always nice to see someone so in tune, and comfortable with her role.
Peace, Maxine
"You and Helen both hypothesized without evidence that the left thinks that the right is a bunch of suppressed prudes offended by breasts, but your position has been that feminists are not allowed to call themselves feminists and yet pose in anything but a stooped over breast minimalizing position for a photograph."
Oh, bullshit. I never said that. That's how they keep presenting it to deflect attention from the real question I asked -- which they never touch -- which is why feminists should pose proudly with Clinton? A sub-issue in my post was that the goal of the lunch, which was to help Hillary (by co-opting bloggers), was hurt by the fact that the way Valenti looked called to mind Monica Lewinsky and thus made us think things that undermined that goal.
I'd never watched a bloggingheads until today. (Actually, I listened while I put together a fiberboard bookcase in another room. Clearly, I am a well-educated literate viewer.)
You should do this every week.
But part of the equation is still missing. If this were radio, the year would be 1921. In other words, you have built a listener base (and probably one that is upscale), so where are the advertisers?
Write every Fortune 500 co. that advertises on Sunday morning TV shows. Sounds crazy, but why shouldn't Boeing or ADM advertise with you? Alternatively, Prof. Reynolds, you like cars, so why not road test new cars and get a travel industry advertiser?
Find someone with deep pockets to finance some sort of expansion....i.e. to make some money. There are people in the BIg City near where I live who are spending $250K on...landscaping! A half mil to people like that is nothing...so long as you have a business plan...and they like your politics.
Contact all the presidential candidates. See if you can interview one of them in this tag team format. If I were running for Pres. I'd rather be interviewed by a dispassionate law prof. than some no-nothing blowhard showboat TV journalist. (Well, then again, maybe not....)
What I'm saying is--go after the networks. You know the execs at the TV networks know it's crazy to spend $15M a year on Katie Couric. If they can afford that, they could afford, say, $100K on a law prof. (Just send me 15%.)
Some other random thoughts...
People are attracted to y'alls blogs because you are fair and open-minded.....the vulgarity and virulent anger of many posts has long since started turing me off. Sorry. Prof. Althouse...and it will turn off people/corporations with deep pockets...I haven't watched any TV news in years; I only snag snippets on the Net...And Prof. Reynolds I got a kick out of seeing your wife. Can you imagine a TV journalist on a talk show inviting his wife/her husband to sit in? Ha! Nope, can't do that on TV...Why? Well, you just can't....
Oh, bullshit. I never said that. That's how they keep presenting it to deflect attention from the real question I asked -- which they never touch -- which is why feminists should pose proudly with Clinton? A sub-issue in my post was that the goal of the lunch, which was to help Hillary (by co-opting bloggers), was hurt by the fact that the way Valenti looked called to mind Monica Lewinsky and thus made us think things that undermined that goal.
Better question is why shouldn't they pose proudly with Clinton. The fact Valenti looked like Lewinsky to you isn't really her fault.
Well then Dr. Helen better not pose with Clinton, because she had some heavy-duty cleavage going on..
...which I felt completely undermined anything she said. (I always watch these things on "mute" anyway) .
That, and her "elbow" lessened her.
Althouse's scoop-neck top felt appropriate.
That was a compliment.
Peace, Maxine
Sorry, I'm going to comment on how people who make themselves public figures look in photographs. It's legit and funny. And if it pissing the people I'm zinging off, that's just fine. I mean to do that. I really am critical of the bloggers who posed with Clinton, and I am very wary of Bill's role in Hillary's campaign. I mean to observe very closely how he is used.
That last comment was aimed back at Naked Guy, not Maxine.
Maxine's fashion advice and psychological insights are always helpful.
You asked why conservatives are attracted to your blog despite being "let down" b/c you don't side with us. The answer is simple - you provide a venue that other "left" blogs don't. We want to be influenced by opposing opinion, we want to exchange ideas. Most the lefty blogs out there are like Marcotte's, most of their commenters are like reality check. So its nice to have sane Democrat around to bounce ideas off of.
Ann
If I can ask, would you have been critical of said bloggers [using the same rationale] for posing with Guiliani? Legit question I think.
Everyone:
Look at her elbow !!!
Take a ruler and measure the space between Dr. Helen's elbow and Glenn's sleeve. Sometimes they touch, sometimes his arm overtakes her, and briefly there's a bit of a space.
At one point, early on, when Dr. Helen first sits down, and they are both trying to get comfortable (always awkward) ...from the way Glenn is crossing his legs Dr. Helen's wandering elbow touches Glenn's knee!
How erotic. I needed smelling salts!
Yes, I have too much time on my hands, and I'm aware it's a small space they were in, but still....
I'm gonna go find my Amy Vanderbilt, or Emily Post, because I don't think you are supposed to put your elbows on an armrest, or is that just when dining....like she did.
She was just a guest there. You wouldn't, as a guest, try to elbow your way in, right?
Glenn was obviously uncomfortable, yet everytime sleeves touched, I got the vapors, and all a'twitter.
Wow, doesn't take much to get me going, I guess.
Can you imagine if she was wearing bare sleeves?, and the skin of her arm (I bet her biceps are very toned) ...actually touched his pant-leg knee.....
I'd faint dead-away.
Peace, Maxine
Re Fen's point, I basically agree, but I'd put it more simply: I don't want to be in an echo chamber, and I don't demand that people agree with me on every point to like them and want to interact with them. And I think that's generally true on the right. I'm not going to get into listing names (whenever anyone does a list, someone gets left out and may feel hurt), but there are a lot of commenters here and in other places who I don't agree with on every issue (and in some cases, whom I disagree with on just about everything) but with whom it's nice to converse.
I like to be challenged. I've changed my mind on issues because something Ethan Leib or Dan Solove or, yes, Ann Althouse have argued. It's healthy to be pushed; that's why you read the opinion and the dissent. There's something somewhat suspect about the incestuous instinct that makes some people who go looking for blogs that cocoon them in complete agreement.
Re the diavlog, Ann has a habit of averting her eyes from the camera to her left - which, of course, means that in the final product, she appears to spend a significant portion of the show talking to or gazing intently at Helen's breasts. LOL.
Naked Lunch said...
"If I can ask, would you have been critical of said bloggers [using the same rationale] for posing with Guiliani? Legit question I think."
I think it's a different with Clinton than it would be with Giuliani, because with the latter, the event wouldn't be set against a comparable backdrop of liberal feminists continuing to fawn over Clinton for several years despite his having engaged in conduct which they would readily have condemned anyone else -- Say... Giuliani, for example -- for engaging in.
Sometimes it's about the thing, and sometimes it's about the guy, and not all guys are equal. It's the hypocrisy, stoopid. ;)
But Helen is having second thoughts about revealing so much cleavage...that's why she puts her hand in front of her face so much...to try to block the view.
All that fidgeting and rearranging/negotiating body positions.
Don't people know how to sit in a chair these days? Especially in such close quarters with the opposite sex.
I guess Dr. Helen wasn't quite used to that type of thing.
Peace, Maxine
"...your position has been that feminists are not allowed to call themselves feminists and yet pose in anything but a stooped over breast minimalizing position for a photograph."
Oh, bullshit. I never said that. That's how they keep presenting it to deflect attention from the real question I asked -- which they never touch -- which is why feminists should pose proudly with Clinton?
Was it a different Ann Althouse that said this?
Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.) I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about.
12:03 PM
and
And anyone who doesn't like what I'm saying about Jessica, prove your good faith by condemning the "Daily Show" clip about Katherine Harris that I've linked to.
and
Surgical lady: I'm really not interested in the size of your boobs, but "thanks for sharing." I will say this. Look closely at that picture and try to adopt the posture Jessica's in. I did. It's not natural, and it's not just a matter of standing upright. I challenge you to take this test. Then apologize to me for your foolish accusations.
You go on and on about the use of breast imagery at feministing, about their tee-shirts, and you label that as breast blogging and pandering. You say they cannot do that and be feminists, but you say it is okay for Dr. Helen to do the same thing.
Basically it is just a power game for all of you. You are trying to claim that only conservatives or conservative feminists can use breast (or sexual) imagery and trying to claim that if a liberal feminist does that she must be a hypocrite. In doing so you ignore the changes (good and bad) and evolution of thought (or devolution of thought) in feminism in the past 30 years.
It's a nonsensical argument, but one you stick to.
As I said before, it's of a pattern where you shift the goal posts to deny your having to take responsibility for having said silly things.
This is a distraction from your current contradiction that you keep on avoiding: how does your demand of Sadly, No! comport with your defense of AutoAdmit? How can you demand Sadly, No! stop allowing impersonations of you, but not make that demand of AutoAdmit wrt Brian Leither? How can you demand that Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, and Jill Filopovic get a sense of humor and perspective about internet discussions and then not show that sense of humor and perspective yourself about impersonations?
One of your Blogging heads topic asked : "Are we really all that politically polarized? (04:49)"
I'd say yes we are. It's vitriol 24x7. For proof, look at an old Mash TV episode. They contained regular lib very con give and take but it was mutual disdain and never amounted to outright hatred.
I recognize it was a comedy but it reflected the times during which it was written 1970-1980's.
That is my two cents for the day.
I haven't had this much fun, since being fixated on Nancy Pelosi's incessant blinking and facial movements at the State of The Union address.
I'm telling you it's a Brunette thing.
I'm telling you all, when Helen's jutting elbow touches Glenn's pant-leg knee....it's an absolute Sentinel Event.
One of those Halcyon moments.
Really, put the tape on pause....and look at where her elbow goes.
Althouse who? This video is all about Dr. Helen's elbow, and the places it goes to.
Peace, Maxine
Simon
You seem to be saying that it would be hypocritical for Guilaini to meet [then] with a liberal feminist group, if invited to participate in a blogger conference, of sorts?
Or would the hypocrisy come again with the liberal feminist group doing the inviting of Guiliani.
The dark shirt you wore was very flattering.
Why did the pink beverage in the champagne flute never seem to go down? Was someone refilling it off camera or were you only faux sipping?
Dr. Helen is quite lovely--reminds me of a prettier, less goomy Andie MacDowell.
I liked how the ringing phone gave you a totally blonde, distracted moment. Priceless.
I'm scratching my head here. Reality check, I'm probably going to regret wasting perfectly good pixels to ask this, but where do you see contradiction between the statements "the real question I asked ... is why feminists should pose proudly with Clinton" and "I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing"? The first criticizes feminists for striking a particular pose with Bill Clinton. The second criticizes feminists for...Um... striking a particular pose with Bill Clinton. So, too, is the demand to "Look closely at that picture and try to adopt the posture Jessica's in. I did. It's not natural, and it's not just a matter of standing upright" - again, that criticizes feminists (or rather, a particular putative feminist, but that isn't a material distinction for purposes of your argument) for striking a particular pose with Bill Clinton.
Your ADS is showing again. Up the voltage on those shock treatments.
NL - You've kind of inverted it, talking about it being hypocritical for Giuliani to do this or that - I'm not sure Giuliani himself could be hypocritical about this issue because so far as I know, he's never claimed to be a feminist! ;)
I think the point I was fumbling to make is this. First, to concede that while Giuliani and Clinton both had affairs - heck, let's throw Newt into the mix, too - and treated women qua women in ways that feminists would disapprove of, there is a difference in kind of the behavior. with Giuliani's affair - unlike Clinton's and Gingrich's - there was no feminist-concerning issue of hierarchy and abuse of power (apart from pervasive gender hierarchy, a term Louis Michael Seidman brought to my attention a few weeks ago and which I now love, and which strikes me as being akin to Christian ideas of original sin).
And second, even assuming comparability, the relationship between liberal feminists (of which Valenti is one) and Clinton in the years since his behavior came to light is the backdrop against which the Valenti meeting took place. There has been no continuing backdrop of liberal feminist (IMO, the arrival of the 3d Wave made it possibe to talk about liberal and conservative feminists - sometime during the 80s, it ceased to be the case that feminism and feminist ideas were necessarily part of the progressive vanguard, and so the notion of "conservative feminist" ceased to be an oxymoron) hypocrisy towards Giuliani over his personal life. The issue for me (I think but am not certain that this is also Ann's position) is the hypocrisy that liberal feminists are willing to forgive Clinton for far worse transgressions than Giuliani because they politically like Bill Clinton (or, even more specifically, because they hate Bush and have an interest in deifying any Democrat as a Presidential counterexample to Bush, and Clinton's the only guy they've got).
Simon: I would say cozing up to the sexual-harasser-in-chief violates feminist ideals. Looking so giddy while cozying up seems geeky and starstruck.
She's shifting the goal posts Simon.
Read the original post. She doesn't raise the question about Clinton being bad for feminism until AFTER she has attacked Jessica for her posing.
Her initial post is short and has two themes in it:
1) The bloggers were taken in by the lunch and the meeting with the President, and
2) Jessica was somehow posed in a way to exploit her sexuality.
The Professor claims her first point to ask "why feminists should pose proudly with Clinton?", but you shouldn't believe that without seeing the evidence, and the evidence disagrees with that interpretation.
Her first link was to Jeralyn Merritt. Merritt is known primarily for her work as a defense lawyer. She blogs about issues a defense lawyer is interested in first, politics second, and feminism only has it happens to fit into the above two categories.
In the post Althouse linked to, Merritt says, "Criminal defense lawyers take note: He's far better on our issues than we thought while he was President", which supports Althouse's theme which was that the bloggers were taken in by the greet and eat and not her claim that it was about feminism.
Althouse's second link is to John Aravosis. Aravosis is a political blogger known primarily for his works on gay rights and maybe on gay hypocrisy in the Republican Party. Americablog doesn't blogroll Pandagon, or Feministe, or Feministing, or any feminist blogs that I can see. Again, that does not support Ann's claim that the first issue was about Clinton's feminist credentials.
Her first issue was that the bloggers were blinded by the greet and eat and their judgment suffered.
As an aside, it's also pretty damn silly for Althouse to demand that individuals that agree with Clinton on some issues and not on others must never meet or say anything positive about Bill Clinton.
But that is what she and you all are doing.
If someone calls themself a feminist, but disagrees with Althouse on the particulars, then Althouse says that you must never ever say anything positive or meet with President Clinton.
She is shifting the goal posts again Simon, and you are enabling that behavior of hers. It makes for a poor argument, though it may work for you in a trial.
My real question for several days has been how Professor Althouse reconciles her different expectations, demands, and support of Sadly, No! and AutoAdmit. She has not once tried to answer that. It's because she has no answer for it. It's because there is no way to reconcile that. It's because her support on these issues is partisan and weird and depends on the situation and how it affects Professor Althouse.
I would think that 3rd wave feminists would say that what happened between Lewinsky and Clinton was initiated by the women and an event between two consenting adults.
It doesn't speak well for either Lewinsky or Clinton, but it didn't constitute sexual harassment either.
Ann's, Ruth Anne's feelings are more the feelings of a 2nd wave, "I blame the patriarchy" feminist, a movement that does give itself the right to make judgments on the sexual behavior of others, and that does tend to see Lewinsky (who most people agree initiated the affair) as a victim of a man.
Thus Ann's position is more of 2nd wave feminist vs. 3rd wave feminists.
Ironically, as I've pointed out before, when one reads Amanda Marcotte in the original Klingon, she is also a 2nd wave feminist, but one that puts on airs of 3rd wave feminism.
Feminism is stuck with these catfights.
Ruth Anne - agreed.
Reality Check - the goalposts seem to be staying obstinately static, as my previous reply indicated. Perhaps this hallucination where solid objects move - dance, even! - before your eyes is a symptom of ADS? In Reality Check's eyes, this blog must be like Fantasia, the inanimate, animated; the stable, mobile.
As to the 3d wave, I really don't much care what they argue, although I'll concede that I exclude Naomi Wolfe and Natasha Walters from membership of that category even if they might consider themselves to be a part of it. The distinguishing characteristic of the 3d wave, in my view, is its focus on issues which do no affect women qua women, which in my view makes it far more of a liberal political theory than an actual feminist theory. Uncoupling feminism from women is like uncoupling beer from alcohol: you can do it, but the result is unpalatable and not really the same thing at all.
Love the original klingon comment! LOL.
A few things:
1. Was Giuliani accused of sexual harassment in the workplace? If not, there's no equivalence.
2. Do you people realize I voted for Clinton twice (and after him, for Gore) and that I signed the lawprofs' letter against impeachment?
3. The alternative to standing in an arched-back, 3/4-style position while wearing a tight sweater is not "stooping" over and wearing baggy clothes. Anyone who thinks these two extremes are all there are is not competent to function in a professional world.
4. I like the way Ruth Anne is picking up on The Wisdom of Maxine with that "blonde moment" stuff. (I take advantage of dramatic opportunities.)
5. Why is no one trying to guess what I was drinking? (And I was refilling the glass. You can hear the pouring sound.)
2. Do you people realize I voted for Clinton twice (and after him, for Gore) and that I signed the lawprofs' letter against impeachment?
I'll bet you'd take all that back in a minute if you could, brownshirt.
5. Why is no one trying to guess what I was drinking?
Nobody fucking cares. Nobody.
Trust me.
Ann Althouse said...
"I voted for Clinton twice ... [and] I signed the lawprofs' letter against impeachment?"
Yes, but to take a tangent back to something you were talking about on WPR yesterday, do you agree that if Libby should be prosecuted for perjury regardless of the context in which he perjured himself (which I agree with your take on), it was reasonable to impeach Clinton for perjury, regardless of the context in which her perjured himself? I realize that impeachment and prosecution aren't precisely analagous, so as a hypothetical: If it had been Cheney, rather than Libby, who'd been caught perjuring himself over this business, would you support the House impeaching Cheney?
"Why is no one trying to guess what I was drinking?"
If it's Kool Aid, I'm going to laugh my ass off at the subtle visual gag poking fun at your detractors. ;)
But, the Blonde moments aren't as harsh as the Brunette "elbowing" stuff.
"Brunette" just doesn't play well, or translate, on camera, I don't think.
These hard, and aggressive Brunettes---you know they don't age well at all, either.
You're supposed to lighten up as you get older.
Helen is so entrenched in 'Brunette'...she's more brunette than Michelle Malkin. More 'brunette' than La Shawn even.
Let's hope Helen will tone it down, and soften herself with time.
Peace, Maxine
I thought the stemmed glass was a bit too precious and rarified.
What happened to the big Pottery Barn coffee cup? At least that was more utilitarian--a little more earthy.
In any case, I thought it was very refreshing to fixate---I mean focus, ---on something other than the endless books in the background.
Given I watch the whole thing in mute.
Peace, Maxine
I'm guessing pink lemonade and that dave is wrong.
I would say cozing up to the sexual-harasser-in-chief violates feminist ideals. Looking so giddy while cozying up seems geeky and starstruck
But that was just the beginning, and could have easily been shrugged off as a Murphy attack.
The worst part was listening to the ignorance of Jessica and her defenders re Clinton. It was not just about sex between consenting adults. The Jones team had a right to discovery under the 1994 Crime Bill, which feminist NOW lobbied for and Clinton signed. Under that law, Jones had a right to any information that established a pattern of sexual predatory behavior in the workplace on the part of Clinton. Her team sought out Lewisnky to determine if she had been coerced and fit into that pattern. Thats why his lies and obstruction of justice mattered - they denied Jone's rights.
Valenti also seemed clueless about her idol's history of sexual harassment - groping campaign vounteers [Wiley] and VIP staff [Mondale], denying promotions to those women who refused to blow him [Jones] and rewarding those who did [Lewinsky] with interviews at Revlon and the UN. To say nothing of all the hard working women who were denied promotions/interviews because they weren't asked to spread their legs for the boss. Valenti appeared clueless
I understand if she was excited to get a pic with the President and lost her bearing. I also understand she inadvertently affected that pose, without any awareness of the image it would evoke. And I feel sorry for her if she can't hang that pic on her wall without being reminded of all the contraversy she caused. But bottom line, the Monica-like pic became symbolic of her cluelessness re the Clinton history.
It wasn't pink lemonade.
I remember when that picture went up.
Half the people I showed it to said, "Is that Monica?" The other half just started laughing hysterically.
The defenses seemed tone deaf to the point of obtuseness.
I'd guess "Pink Squirrel" in true Althousian form, but those drinks are creamy.
Pink grapefruit juice?
Unless a liberal feminist woman poses in a stooped over breast minimalizing fashion, it is clear that she risks you misinterpreting her pose and having you call her out on it.
But what of my other points that you conspicuously failed to respond to?
That your cry of feminism came only AFTER you had picked on Valenti?
That there is a huge contradiction inherent in your demands on Sadly, No! and your defense of AutoAdmit?
Anyone unable to understand the use of hyperbole or taking an argument to its logical extreme is not competent to teach law, much less function in a professional world.
(What is a professional world?)
Lots of fun. It would have been even better if you could have heard what Dr. Helen was saying.
It's guava juice!
It's cranberry juice mixed with seltzer!
It's grenadine syrup in Lurisia mineral water!
It's Crystal Light, which you believe in because you believe in you!
Bloggingheads is certainly educational.
I had no idea Maxine had an elbow fetish!
Actually, it was "Focus" "Vitamin Water." Some atrociously watered down strawberry kiwi thing that I pay way too much for.
Simon
Actually Clinton, Guiliani and Gingrich all have "hierarchy and abuse of power" similarities in their affairs. All three were equally egregious in their own way in my opinion.
Ann asked...
Was Giuliani accused of sexual harassment in the workplace? If not, there's no equivalence.
Well you have been accused of many things, a colleague of yours was accused of things in the workplace - but it doesn't make them true.
NL - well, the point I was trying to get to was the one Ann made (that you quote, actually), which is whether "Giuliani accused of sexual harassment in the workplace?" If Giuliani cheated on (and then left) his wife with someone in his employ, as Clinton and Gingrich did, then sure, they're "equally egregious in their own way," equivalence between what they did, and in which case, no, feminists probably shouldn't be cozying up with Giuliani. But (1) is that actually what happened? And (2) are feminists cozying up with Guiliani? I just don't see an endorsement by NOW, Jessica Valenti or Amanda Marcotte in Rudy's future - do you?
And I feel sorry for her if she can't hang that pic on her wall without being reminded of all the contraversy she caused.
As far as I know Ann was the pioneer on this "outing", millions of people viewed it without any trauma.
Valenti also seemed clueless about her idol's history of sexual harassment - groping campaign vounteers [Wiley]
Linda Tripp testified to the grand jury that Willey was after Clinton from the get go, and wanted to be Clinton's boyfriend. See here.
Simon
I see three very bright politicians with failures in their personal life. Unproven accusations don't count against you on your record as far as I'm concerned. And it be criminal to think Guiliani couldn't meet with a feminist group, or a pro-life group, etc for fear of excommunication or ostracism from our Perceivers of Wisdom. We live in focus group approved sound-bite generated hell, and it's maddening.
I forgot to say above...
Letting people film your classes is very gratefuldead. I've got a bootleg ConlawII from either your spring 94 or 95 tour. It's very happening.
And, Prof. Althouse, ain't no men taking no videos in Prof. Reynold's health club-type spa. Reason being "Jesus is Lord Over Knoxville." At least that's what the sign used to proclaim on the way into town.
Some might call Helen and Anne's conversation a "diavlog"
I prefer to call it a... "divalog."
Prof. Althouse, when, oh when are you going to do a visiting professorship down south!?!?!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा