This goes for about 48 minutes. I think it's pretty good. I'll listen to it myself now and pick out some high spots.
ADDED: I reject the distraction that is Jared Lougher:
We talk about Jeremiah Wright as an exemplar of edgy speech on the left:
Glenn is rubbed the wrong way by news commentators, after the memorial, dwelling on the topic of "Obama's got his mojo back":
The use of Native American religion in the memorial — I call it patronizing:
Glenn pushes for gun control, I push back (a bit) and do a quick lecture on federalism and the Second Amendment at one point:
१७ जानेवारी, २०११
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६७ टिप्पण्या:
This one should be fascinating! Anyone want to place a bet on how long it takes Loury to say something along the lines of, "anger is a social construct--a product of semiotic dissonance between the two dominant ideologies"?
Banish that scowl on you face in the screen capture!!
Fight the glower!
Glenn seemed sort of bored/cranky at the beginning...Althouse was, on the other hand, bright-eyed and bushy tailed....metaphorically.
Glenn seemed sort of bored/cranky
Well, it's been one hell of a rotten week for the left, after all. Their entire carefully constructed SARAH PALIN = WHITE TERRORIST SHE-DEVIL collapsed right out from underneath them, sans warning...
... and, besides, there simply weren't enough free t-shirts available for every last acolyte to get one, dammit!
Why is Morgan Freeman in every freakin' movie these days?
On the "death panels", I wish you hadn't let Loury get away with using rational as a synonym for bureaucratic. That move was already old and tired back when Hayek started warning us about it.
"... anger is a social construct--a product of semiotic dissonance between the two dominant ideologies ...
There is only one ideology. The other is an idiotology.
I guess this match-up after all the talk about the Crack Emcee means we have to term Glenn Loury the goatee guy. So to speak.
If Glenn is Morgan Freeman, then I'm Charlie Bronson!
So according to Mr. Loury "GOD DAMN America" is a legitimate part of discourse?
But whatever Glen Beck does (never watched the guy myself) is not, because it involves some kind of on your knees revivalism?
Did I get that right?
If Glenn is Morgan Freeman, then I'm Charlie Bronson!
If Glenn Loury is Morgan Freeman, then Helen Thomas is Megan Fox.
I like listening to Loury and John McWhorter. Always fascinating.
Last week I tried to listen to Loury and Rich Lowery of National Review. Glenn Lowery sounded like he either had a pogo stick up his ass or he was in a forced conversation with Jeffery Dahmer. It was bizarre.
If Glenn Loury is Morgan Freeman, then Helen Thomas is Megan Fox.
Helen Thomas is just a mask right?
Last week I tried to listen to Loury and Rich Lowery of National Review. Glenn Lowery
Oh, sweet fluffy Baby Jesus! You mean they somehow actually achieved fusion -- ?!?
Oh, sweet fluffy Baby Jesus! You mean they somehow actually achieved fusion -- ?!?
Oh lord. You know ehat I meant.
Anyhoo, to continue. LOURY acted like actually speaking to LOWERY was the most distasteful thing he had ever been asked to do. Literally. He sound like he was cleaning diapers with his tongue.
Oh lord. You know ehat I meant.
Of course I did. Still funny, though. ;)
Appsrently I can't type three words today without a typo. I blame Sara Palin.
glenn seems like a nice guy but I was almost expecting him to start advocating for the quartering of soldiers at my house.
Althouse: "Keep doing what we are doing"
I agree. After 911 we didn't curtail freedom of speech in America to suit radical Islamic tastes. It would have been letting the terrorists win. If we change the nature of our discourse over this shooting then Jared Loughner wins.
That whole business about how to prevent an incident like Tucson Arizona by somehow identifying the nuts early enough is an enterprise froth with danger to civil liberties and fredom in general.
Jeeeez, Iceberg Slim could take a lesson from you!
Glenn did it! No social constructs in 48 minutes of talking. I'm so proud.
It was a thoroughly interesting diavlog.
But the really fascinating topic--committing recognizably insane people to institutions--was brushed aside in favor of the less interesting topic of gun control. I'd be interested to hear what shape involuntary commitment would take with someone like Loughner. Where is the line between conspiratorial and an imminent danger? Surely not everyone who makes death threats is, as Loughner did, is clinically insane.
A nice civil discussion. I liked it.
We have the culture we have
Echoes of Rumsfield.
Impressive scarf.
I liked the way Prof. Loury used several words from famous quotes about Obama in the discussion regarding his speech and how he's back.
Camera angles are funny/odd. Loury's camera is below his visage so he's peering slightly downward whereas Professor, your's must be on top of your monitor and thus you're looking up. When put in combo with Loury being closer to the camera and you being farther, it gave this bloggingheads a "looking down upon" vibe.
Still, a nice discussion
Is Glenn IQ challenged? I think so.
"That whole business about how to prevent an incident like Tucson Arizona by somehow identifying the nuts early enough is an enterprise froth with danger to civil liberties and fredom in general."
Yeah, this idea Ann broached that we should somehow identify and involuntarily commit people like Loughner "before they act" is a recipe for disaster. We tired that and discovered that the state is simply too cruel to such people to allow that to occur again.
Remember, Loughner never threatened anybody before he acted. Was he odd? Yep. Certifiably odd? Sure.
Was he a danger to himself or others? Well, as evidenced by the fact that he regularly smoked marijuana I'd have to say that clearly he was a danger to himself ... but unfortunately that's not enough to get you committed or we wouldn't have to worry much about the fucked-up Democrat Party.
The difference between Jared Loughner and James Lee Fuller is that Fuller went ahead and verbalized his killplan on national television in front of a live studio audience on videotape. So we know for a fact that he's a wannabe killer who should never be let out again. We're fortunate to already know that he's a clear and present danger to the community.
Loughner went off without such a warning.
So let's see just how long ObamaCare keeps James Lee Harvey Oswald ... er James Fuller ... off the streets.
I put the over/under at less than one week before that wackjob is let out to begin the planning for his deathspree.
it's been one hell of a rotten week for the left, after all.
I don't know a lot about him but is Glenn Loury "on the left"?
As regards Rev. Wright vs. Beck, if I heard him correctly he doesn't like listening to Glenn Beck but I didn't hear him say he shouldn't speak or doesn't have the right to speak. In the same manner, I didn't hear a ringing endorsement of Rev. Wright's speech, only that it was representative of a certain segment of the American populace, namely the South Side of Chicago.
Remember, Loughner never threatened anybody before he acted.
Are we sure about that? 60 Minutes reported last night that FOUR cops were sent to inform Loughner that he was expelled from college. CBS chose not to pull on that particular thread, but obviously someone thought Boy Psycho was dangerous.
PS I know the physician who gave the Pascua Yaqui invocation. Its not my preference and it seemed out of place. I assume he was asked by University officials and likely because someone thought it was somehow "representative" of AZ and/or the "U of A". When the speech started I was next door in our clubhouse, caught a glimpse of a TV monitor, saw the podium and the feather and thought "Oh no, not a Native American speaking". In the next two minutes I was back home and the first thing my wife say is "Look,its ______________ speaking!" She was excited AND thought it was out of place.
Nice painting!
I don't know a lot about him but is Glenn Loury "on the left"?
“I was once considered one of the pre-eminent black conservatives in the past, but now I'm more of a black progressive and I'm in the right place [...]”
That's not a painting. That's a copy of Titus's sonogram. He sent it out as a Christmas card this year.
On the gun control issue, Ann was absolutely right. If it had been illegal for Loughner to own a gun, it would be no more effective at preventing his violence than did the fact that murder is illegal. In fact, we may be lucky that he wasn't forced to be more creative with his methods as was done in Oklahoma City.
To me, this was about as preventable as an earthquake.
Cute.
I think it's silly and/or bizarre that Glenn Loury thinks so many things are silly and/or bizarre.
Very entertaining Bloggingheads!
A.A. came off a bit too polite for my taste, but I pretty much think that about everybody.
Professor Loury seems like a genuinely nice guy, despite his apparent Constitutional blind spots.
That whole business about how to prevent an incident like Tucson Arizona by somehow identifying the nuts early enough is an enterprise froth with danger to civil liberties and fredom in general.
agreed.
And its fraught with danger too!
(I do like the image of froth with danger. I'll have to use that next time I order a Starbucks's)
Seems strange that Jeremiah Wright was OK because he spoke like South Chicago but people like Glenn Beck are not OK because they are religious-oriented. Seems to me that if Wright is OK because he is like South Chicago but anyone who is like the Bible Belt community is not OK because they are religious. Why the one is OK and not the other.
When Loury makes cultural excuses for Jeremiah Wright that should end the conversation. What if Althouse were to make cultural excuses for Lester Maddox? Of course she never would but what if? Wow would that ever end the conversation. Complete imbalance. It will never end: nice sincere whites appealing to Loury and his ilk, smooth credentialed racists, to be nice, to be reasonable, to come halfway. Ah, what's the use.
Right on cue, the left dredges up the gun control zombie.
I think Althouse makes a pertinent point, tens of millions of Americans own guns of all sorts safely and without doing violence to anyone.
Loughner could just as easily run down his victims with a car or truck, or used explosives.
Laws cannot stop a person bent on maiming and killing, especially if they are deranged and/or willing to die in commission of the act.
Great DV, but Althouse and Glenn both annoyed me by talking about "Native American Religion" - a meaningless term given the hundreds of tribes and tribal religions in the USA. You might as well talk about "African Religion". The Speaker was giving a Yaqui Indian blessing.
And Glenn is usually calm and deliberate of speech, so no, he wasn't bored unless he's always so.
A civil discussion, although I thought I saw flicker of irritation on Alhouse's face when Glenn asked for her "no doubt interesting perspective" in a quasi- patronizing way.
" ... when Glenn asked for her "no doubt interesting perspective" in a quasi- patronizing way."
Well, Ann is a slice of whitebread.
So ... you know, cultural excuse and all.
The "Native Ameican" blessing was Yaqui? I thought it was Hopi-Changi.
"I think Althouse makes a pertinent point, tens of millions of Americans own guns of all sorts safely and without doing violence to anyone."
This is what the left really doesn't get.
We haven't started shooting them yet even though they richly deserve it for committing grand theft of our property.
They can't seem to recognize that, but for our exceptional civility, they'd all be hanging from fucking lampposts.
"I thought it was Hopi-Changi."
Bingo. Thread winner.
I can't watch because I'm at work but, damn, Ann's got her serious face on. Makes me wonder if talking to a black guy strikes her as different than others.
I'll try to watch when I get home and see.
Kudos to Ann for bringing up the subject of the election, which is the crux of the issue. If one side can tell the other, "No, you can't oppose us, that would be uncivil", it's going to put a damper on the whole electoral thing.
Also, I loved Loury trying to dance around the idea that having some Yaqui Indian, instead of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish clergy - this was supposed to be a memorial, after all - was "part of the Southwestern culture".
Riiight.
It was another multi-culti diversity exercise by the PC crowd in the Democrat Party. The only thing the Lefties would have barred would have been clergy, in all probability.
Why hasn't Ritmo weighed in with his infinite wisdom?
When the Indian gave his blessing and invocation, most of the politicians looked down at their shoes. It seemed to me to be silly to be waving feathers and pointing to eastern portals. None of the victims and, I'm sure, very few of the audience were of the Yaqui religious persuasion. The invocation had nothing to do with them or the victims. I don't even know if the speaker, who was a physician, believed in any meaningful way in what he was saying. It set the wrong tone and was perhaps responsible for the rowdy atmosphere at the service.....By Loury's reasoning would it be appropriate to start pubic ceremonies in England with a Druid Wican prayer in honor of those who perished in the Roman conquest?
They can't seem to recognize that, but for our exceptional civility, they'd all be hanging from fucking lampposts.
Now that wasn't very civil.
The Crack Emcee said...
"I'll try to watch when I get home and see."
Oh good. Promise? Because, we can barely wait for you to jump to another one of your fascinating race-based conclusions.
If a similar attack happened in Massachusetts, would we have to suffer through some douchebag dressed like Miles Standish giving the keynote?
I try to be on the conservative side of everything because it's usually RIGHT, but in terms of guns, I think Madison might have had flintlock muskets instead of Glock semiautomatics in mind when he was squibbing the second amendment. If he had known, I think he would have written, "Everyone has the right to bear arms (but not Glock semiautomatics) and if they do have them, everyone should only have at most but one clip."
I did watch the whole thing and it was good. I think Ann won hands down on the two big issues of "hate" speech and the 2nd amendment.
Even Loury, who seems like a nice man, didn't seem to believe what he said about Wright being sort of salty and understood only in context while Glenn Beck, talking about praying on your knees, was "scary." Please!
On the 2nd amendment, why is it that liberals want the Constitution interpreted literally and the issue deferred to the states? But on abortion, we must fabricate a right and it must be decided on a federal level.
So, Ann for the win. And good for Loury for being a good sport.
"On the 2nd amendment, why is it that liberals want the Constitution interpreted literally ...But on abortion, we must fabricate a right"
The former increases individual power, the latter decreases it.
There was far too much agreement in this diavlog. Very boring. Both of these two get better when they are challenged.
When Loury talked to Lowery in his last video, Lowery brought nothing to the table .... Loury had nothing to work with.. but he didnt go all Althouse (v Goldberg) on him :-)
"Why hasn't Ritmo weighed in with his infinite wisdom"
I think you mean infinite wordom.
"If he had known, I think he would have written, "Everyone has the right to bear arms (but not Glock semiautomatics) and if they do have them, everyone should only have at most but one clip."
Really. Why? What do you think they used their guns for back then? Not like they were using them against a army or something, right?
Somebody tell Glenn to try and stay in front of the camera next time..
"Why is Morgan Freeman in every freakin' movie these days?"
And, he's unfriendly on set.
At least that was my sister's impression when she was an extra on Outbreak.
But Rene Russo is super sweet, gracious, and lovely. Also, Dustin Hoffman is a great guy.
"Great DV, but Althouse and Glenn both annoyed me by talking about "Native American Religion" - a meaningless term given the hundreds of tribes and tribal religions in the USA. You might as well talk about "African Religion"."
I'm not purporting to name a particular religion. In fact I use a more generic term: "native religions." I'm talking about the kinds of religions that govt officials think of as not really real, but more of charming, colorful folk tradition. I find that offensive.
"I try to be on the conservative side of everything because it's usually RIGHT, but in terms of guns, I think Madison might have had flintlock muskets instead of Glock semiautomatics in mind when he was squibbing the second amendment. If he had known, I think he would have written, "Everyone has the right to bear arms (but not Glock semiautomatics) and if they do have them, everyone should only have at most but one clip.""
Here's what the Supreme Court said about that point in Heller: "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Ah, I'm actually looking forward to this one - Loury is by far the brightest of the regular bloggingheads IMHO (except maybe Mickey Kaus).
to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
Then why can't I buy Stingers at Walmart?
I was right; this was a really good bloggingheads. Glenn's question was awesome: What if the murderer had been a right-winger? I don't think Ann went far enough in response. Indeed, how would we on the right have defended ourselves? We would have been helpless, even if the rhetoric still had nothing to do with it!
As for the "blood libel", I've discussed it with a few people in comment threads. There seems to be a lot of confusion. Here's one comment I had to deal with: "The blood libel is the lie that Jews used the blood of Christian children in their religious rites. I have no idea what that has to do with this. Are you suggesting that liberals use the blood of Tea Party children in our political rites?". People seemed confused. I especially liked this complaint: "To listen to that woman talk about a "blood libel" when ACTUAL blood had been spilled not five days earlier was just shameful."
"Is Glenn IQ challenged? I think so."
Wow. He is so obviously bright. He makes clear points succinctly.
Meade,
We can barely wait for you to jump to another one of your fascinating race-based conclusions.
I only said that because you and the wife are so hung up on the issue. Gawd, you're such a chump. Why don't you talk Ann into reposting that rock face (we all thought was Jimmy Carter) so we can wheel around the Racial May Pole one more time?
BTW - I showed a friend of mine your repeated attacks on me and he described you as Ann's "yapping terrier".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा