Topics:
The cleverness of Obama’s Notre Dame speechHere's the link to the bhTV page, where you can see some links to the things we discuss, an apology for what you'll see are some technical glitches, and the comments on that site — which will almost surely be people hating on me.
Ann: Obama will be the same as Bush on torture
Explaining Cheney’s growing popularity
The politicization of the Supreme Court as a good thing
“American Idol”: Did the Christians gang up against the gay guy?
Why women are still unhappy
You'll also find the context for the out-of-context "breasts, breast, breasts" clip from back here.
Posts
24 comments:
The lighting is so weird. Ann looks like a 60's era Star Trek character, all pink with white hair!
It wasn't a "big coup" for Notre Dame to get the President. Every president in recent memory has spoken there except Clinton.
Hey, I enjoyed that! Good discussion, and some very interesting points. Glad Hanna Rosin saw the point about how kids are being taught to view Obama. She really got it.
@Skyler The "weird" lighting was 100% natural daylight. But maybe the iSight camera and the QuickTime program is set up to work with indoor light, which would be most common.
So it's like the line in "LA Story" where Steve Martin says, "Your breasts, they feel so strange." and the sex in the city gal replies, "Oh, that's because they're real!"
Bravo! Worth every minute of time watching it. You should consider becoming a teacher. You taught the "socialistic" Rosin 5 new insights and did it so sweetly that she enjoyed the experience. Thank you. You have taught Traditionals who read the Blog many things, including an easy "gay friendly" atmosphere, that does not require our giving up our own values in the experience.
I couldn't help but notice that the topic of unhappy women came up again. Does anyone bother to notice that the study that was cited here was specifically in reference to American women? Because that makes complete sense.
Of course, there are a handful that are wonderful, but for the most part American women are indeed a miserable lot. The other thread devolved into a conversation between a bunch of guys giving their two cents while the women said that being aware of emotions generally is the problem. But in this instance I must (surprise, surprise!) disagree! The problem is that conforming to a self-absorbed cultural mindset will never yield a sustained, sensible happiness.
I'm not going to pretend to tell American women how to be happy (that's a lost cause - at least at the present moment), but as for the guys, here's a hint: Don't date American women! Let them work their problems out on their own (if they can help it!) In the meantime, date Latin (and especially Brazilian), Mediterranean and Asian women. Date women from cultures that are open to enjoying all of life's pleasures and that don't seek the unharmonious and insecure imbalance that results from exalting the self as a walled-off entity of never-ending want and desire. Date women who have truly cultivated (or were brought up to know how to cultivate) a true appreciation for all that life has to offer. You'll be much happier, too.
Of course, if one prefers, one can just continue the navel-gazing exercise of catering, either directly or indirectly, to insatiable and fragile egos - female and male. But to paraphrase a conservative criticism of left-wing politics, that's just a way of subsidizing unhappiness.
Just two more cents.
Would it be an exaggeration to say that Obama at Notre Dame was akin to Ahmadinejad being asked to speak at the Knesset?
Traditionalguy - Ann is gay friendly. But you're still an anti-gay bigot.
I don't agree that emotion enters law no matter what.
Except in the sense that emotion accompanies a job well done, and you aim for that satisfaction, which strikes me as a guy thing. Roberts is more likely to fit that category.
The libs aren't trying for a job well done but to fix something.
Fixing is the legislature's job.
Yes, Lem. That would be an extreme exaggeration.
Skyler
Notre Dame '85
Yes, Lem. That would be an extreme exaggeration.
Is it really?
In Admadinejad you have the representative of an ideology that desires to "wipe you off the map"
In Obama you have a representative of an ideology that actively seeks the continuation of genocide.
Actually the American bishops are turning Obama's speech around on him and applauding him for allowing everyone to follow their conscience...and fully expecting that health professionals will be allowed the same freedom of conscience.
Checkmate.
Annie luv, I am interested in viewing some but not all of the viddy O. When you list the topics, list what time they're at so I don't have to search through 42 minutes plus. I know you think I must have plenty of free time on my hands, for as much as I've been participating here with the commentariat lately, and yes, I do. However, I also have a low frustration tolerance.
Be a dear and time-index. Thanks luv.
Skyler:
Is this the Notre Dame you knew?
...here's a hint: Don't date American women!
It was bound to come to this. Pompous Montanus's liberal anti-Americanism hits a new high. Or is it a low?
Lem, for crying out loud, Iran is a theocratic despotic death camp that seeks to destroy the search for knowlege and smash another nation and all its inhabitants, and justifies it through religious intolerance and hatred.
B. Hussein is simply a marxist who happens to be the president of the United States. Notre Dame has a tradition of having the president speak at a commencement at one time during his term of office.
I had no problem with him speaking there, but I think the university really screwed up with their remarks justifying it by saying Mary Glendon would be there as well. They should have simply said that he is the president and we are apolitical and we're honored to have him speak, and leave it at that. Instead they tried to do a morality balancing equation, which is not very palatable for a religious institution like Notre Dame.
Many people may not realize it, but ND is still a very religious place, in the tradition of intellectual Catholicism. I may not be a believer myself, but I certainly respect any attempt to bring logic and reason into religion,and ND does that better than just about any other institution.
The professor makes a good point about the absence of common ground between pro and anti choice forces making discussion impossible.
This is why I don't understand why people expect the PLO to begin any negotiation by conceding Israel's right to exist -- it's the same as expecting the NARAL to start discussions by conceding the fetus's right to exist.
This is why I don't understand why people expect the PLO to begin any negotiation by conceding Israel's right to exist -- it's the same as expecting the NARAL to start discussions by conceding the fetus's right to exist.
Given that I am an eminently sensible sort, it stood to reason, FLS, that you would agree with me about something sooner or later. This appears to be it.
But don't worry. That is not to suggest that we would react similarly to these unrealistic expectations.
DTL...I hope you are wrong. I don't see Gayness as a birth defect like better educated people who claim it is due to a genetic causation. I do see Gayness as a lifestyle choice that is free to anyone, and has never upset me. I just don't understand it very well. And frankly I don't understand why that makes me into your worst enemy.
"And frankly I don't understand why that makes me into your worst enemy."
As a wild guess, you are the enemy because you claim to tolerate but do not embrace the hedonistic lifestyle that others follow. Capish?
I'm down to the carping and whining now:
I'm looking at a different segment now, and realizing how distracting Althouse's self-hydration is. Maybe use a straw next time?
An example of "liberal anti-Americanism"?
Hey, Old Dude. You want to be miserable? That's fine. But this American will take advantage of his God-given right to pursue happiness. Maybe you didn't get that because your conservatardian anti-Americanism starts with spitting on The Declaration of Independence.
Brilliant.
I'm struck by how cynical Hanna insists she must be with Cheney while recoiling at the idea of any cynicism towards Obama. It's like the idea that a politician on her side could 'ever' be less than straight forward never occurred to her. Or alternately, that someone on the other side could have ever wrestled with tough decisions.
I hope you opened her eyes.
Post a Comment