ADDED: Meade makes an accidental appearance a little after 41:00, and I cover him up with a sheet of paper.
Showing posts with label Bloggingheads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bloggingheads. Show all posts
I talk with Tim Noah about the Wisconsin protests and a few other things.
ADDED: Meade makes an accidental appearance a little after 41:00, and I cover him up with a sheet of paper.
Obama orders Justice Department to drop its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Politico reports:
ADDED: Watch me — last October — criticize Obama for fighting against gay rights in the courts:
Hmmm. October... Had to win some votes back then.
“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,” [Attorney General Eric] Holder said in a statement.(Last fall, I was very critical of Obama's willingness to defend DOMA in the courts.)
“The president has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the president’s determination.”
ADDED: Watch me — last October — criticize Obama for fighting against gay rights in the courts:
Hmmm. October... Had to win some votes back then.
A professor is forced to resign after making a racist remark: Is he more likely right-wing or left-wing?
"A political science professor at Murray State University has resigned after telling an African American student that she didn't show up early to class because slaves were always late."
I see that the first commenter there says: "Another asshole, undoubtedly a Republican/TeaPartier."
My guess is exactly the opposite. What would possess a professor to say something like that? From my long experience with professors, I think it is the left-wing professors who: 1. Feel confident in their own goodness on racial issues, 2. Analyze events in terms of race, 3. Think up "critical theory"-type explanations that explore ideas about racial difference, 4. Imagine that it's clever to express these ideas out loud, and 5. Are capable of making the mistake of thinking that the students will know that they are good people who do racial critique that is supposed to be understood as an attack on white people.
A "Republican/TeaPartier" is much more likely to be strongly committed to color-blindness. Ironically, that's something that, in academic circles, can quite easily get you called a racist. (Try asking a lefty lawprof about Chief Justice Roberts's statement that "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.")
Anyway, the professor in this incident is named Mark Wattier. The school is Murray State University. I haven't checked into what his actual political propensities are or what he really had in mind when he said whatever he said that is being reported the way you see it in the linked article. My motivation to write this post was the commenter's reflexive assumption that Wattier displayed right-wing ideology. That is absurd.
I noticed that story because John McWhorter and Glenn Loury are talking about it on Bloggingheads. Their discussion centers on whether the student is "lowering" herself by requesting an apology.
I see that the first commenter there says: "Another asshole, undoubtedly a Republican/TeaPartier."
My guess is exactly the opposite. What would possess a professor to say something like that? From my long experience with professors, I think it is the left-wing professors who: 1. Feel confident in their own goodness on racial issues, 2. Analyze events in terms of race, 3. Think up "critical theory"-type explanations that explore ideas about racial difference, 4. Imagine that it's clever to express these ideas out loud, and 5. Are capable of making the mistake of thinking that the students will know that they are good people who do racial critique that is supposed to be understood as an attack on white people.
A "Republican/TeaPartier" is much more likely to be strongly committed to color-blindness. Ironically, that's something that, in academic circles, can quite easily get you called a racist. (Try asking a lefty lawprof about Chief Justice Roberts's statement that "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.")
Anyway, the professor in this incident is named Mark Wattier. The school is Murray State University. I haven't checked into what his actual political propensities are or what he really had in mind when he said whatever he said that is being reported the way you see it in the linked article. My motivation to write this post was the commenter's reflexive assumption that Wattier displayed right-wing ideology. That is absurd.
***
I noticed that story because John McWhorter and Glenn Loury are talking about it on Bloggingheads. Their discussion centers on whether the student is "lowering" herself by requesting an apology.
"Last fall anthropology declared itself no longer to be a science."
Is that a fair statement of what happened?
Note that John Hawks is at the University of Wisconsin—Madison (where I am), which made this other segment — "Does academic blogging fit a university’s mission?" — especially interesting to me. According to Hawks, the UW has always been especially savvy about the value of blogging professors. And here's Hawks's blog. (Did you know it's "Darwin Day" here on campus today and also Friday and Saturday? I guess the commitment to science represented by the celebration of Darwin doesn't exclude calling 3 days a "day.")
Note that John Hawks is at the University of Wisconsin—Madison (where I am), which made this other segment — "Does academic blogging fit a university’s mission?" — especially interesting to me. According to Hawks, the UW has always been especially savvy about the value of blogging professors. And here's Hawks's blog. (Did you know it's "Darwin Day" here on campus today and also Friday and Saturday? I guess the commitment to science represented by the celebration of Darwin doesn't exclude calling 3 days a "day.")
"In my world, the most important thing that matters is Instapundit. I'm very Instapundit-dependent."
Heh. In my world too! That's why I clipped and embedded that. Note to Glenn...
"If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community."
"They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value."
Says University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, quoted in this John Tierney piece in the NYT, which gets pretty good if you read past the first half. The first half invites mockery for being so head-slappingly obvious. Glenn Reynolds already wrote just about exactly the post I was about to write. I might have gone even shorter, though. "Duh" is shorter than "Indeed." So, yeah, conservatives are so radically underrepresented in academia that it can't be mere chance.
But let's skip into the middle of the piece and think about the mechanisms of exclusion, these "sacred values" that displace scientific thinking. Haidt notes the example of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, back in 1965, who "warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks" and "was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist."
Here's Haidt on Bloggingheads, back in 2008, talking about the social psychology of conservatives and liberals. And here's Haidt's "Your Morals" website project about morality and political ideology.
Says University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, quoted in this John Tierney piece in the NYT, which gets pretty good if you read past the first half. The first half invites mockery for being so head-slappingly obvious. Glenn Reynolds already wrote just about exactly the post I was about to write. I might have gone even shorter, though. "Duh" is shorter than "Indeed." So, yeah, conservatives are so radically underrepresented in academia that it can't be mere chance.
But let's skip into the middle of the piece and think about the mechanisms of exclusion, these "sacred values" that displace scientific thinking. Haidt notes the example of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, back in 1965, who "warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks" and "was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist."
Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”According to Tierney, Haidt's audience of social psychologists "seemed refreshingly receptive to his argument."
A few even endorsed his call for a new affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative by 2020.Affirmative action? Why not just stop giving affirmative action to liberals? I think that would get you way above the 10% quota... if you could do it. Ironically, talking "affirmative action" is inherently off-putting to conservatives. It's more of those sacred values from the tribal-moral community that ward off outsiders.
***
Here's Haidt on Bloggingheads, back in 2008, talking about the social psychology of conservatives and liberals. And here's Haidt's "Your Morals" website project about morality and political ideology.
"What's on besides the Super Bowl?"
"'Sex and the City' marathon... 'Toddlers and Tiaras' marathon... 'Bewitched' marathon... 'Worst Cooks in America' marathon... 'Jerseylicious' marathon..."
"Is it harder for women to be sports fans?"
(Bonus question: Is it harder for women to speak without sounding like everything is a question?)
"Is it harder for women to be sports fans?"
(Bonus question: Is it harder for women to speak without sounding like everything is a question?)
Glenn Beck reacts to what they're saying about him.
Watch him watch Michelle Goldberg:
Michelle Goldberg is a lefty columnist I've done Bloggingheads diavlogs with.
Glenn Beck... I don't know what to make of him. I can't listen to him long enough to follow his theories. Seriously, those banks of creepily lit brown blackboards covered in orange chalkings... it's nightmarish. It flips my too-crazy-to-watch switch, which keeps me from ingesting the substance. But I don't turn around and call him crazy. I'd monitor him for you, but I don't have the attention. I'm suddenly like a schoolboy the teacher thinks needs Ritalin, and I just say no.
Michelle Goldberg is a lefty columnist I've done Bloggingheads diavlogs with.
Glenn Beck... I don't know what to make of him. I can't listen to him long enough to follow his theories. Seriously, those banks of creepily lit brown blackboards covered in orange chalkings... it's nightmarish. It flips my too-crazy-to-watch switch, which keeps me from ingesting the substance. But I don't turn around and call him crazy. I'd monitor him for you, but I don't have the attention. I'm suddenly like a schoolboy the teacher thinks needs Ritalin, and I just say no.
"Why Egypt's Revolution Is Not Islamic" — Part 2.
On Monday, I linked to and we discussed this article by Haroon Moghul. Today, he's on a new Bloggingheads. Topics:
ADDED: Moghul's interlocutor is Sarah Posner, who has written about "The Roots of the American Right’s Muslim Brotherhood Panic." Yesterday, I listened to Rush Limbaugh (which I always do) and watched Glenn Beck (which I'd never done for more than 5 minutes) and thought they were making overconfident statements about things they were only guessing about.
The revolution in Egypt is not IslamicI haven't listened yet, but I was impressed by the article and am interested in hearing him questioned about it.
A primer on the Muslim Brotherhood
The Brotherhood in America
Conservatives fight against Islamic organizations in the US
What Shariah is and isn’t
How Egypt could reduce American Islamophobia
ADDED: Moghul's interlocutor is Sarah Posner, who has written about "The Roots of the American Right’s Muslim Brotherhood Panic." Yesterday, I listened to Rush Limbaugh (which I always do) and watched Glenn Beck (which I'd never done for more than 5 minutes) and thought they were making overconfident statements about things they were only guessing about.
I take on Bob Wright in the "Underhanded Humiliation Edition" of Bloggingheads.
Topics include: snow, Egypt, the Constitution (as political argument and as possibly not violated by Obamacare), gun rights, sex and violence (and Jack Nicholson), comparative quarterbacks (with a bonus display of my Aaron Rodgers cheese), and a gigantic blow-up over Glenn Beck and freedom of speech.
"We Just Witnessed The Media's Test Run To Re-Elect Barack Obama."
Brilliant blog post by William A. Jacobson:
The ruthless efficiency with which the left-wing blogosphere tied Palin to the shooting, and the success of their efforts in equating Palin with mass murder, is a lesson we should not forget....Rush Limbaugh gave an excellent dramatic reading of this post yesterday, and Jacobson has the video. Here's the transcript, with this commentary from Rush:
Having created a false narrative of Palin's responsibility for the shooting, the mainstream media tried to deprive Palin of the ability to defend herself against the charges. And unfortunately, some who supposedly are on our side have jumped on that bandwagon.
And all the while, Barack Obama stood back for days and let his supporters in the media rip Palin apart, much as he left it to his supporters to go after the Clintons during the primary, only then to proclaim that we don't really know why Jared Loughner did what he did. And the media narrative was how wonderful Obama was, how he helped heal the nation.
Any Republican or conservative or Tea Party supporter who dumps on Palin in any way over the Tucson shooting or her defense of herself should just stop talking now.
It does not matter whether you support Palin for President, whether you think she is electable, or even whether you like her. This is not about Palin, it is about the mainstream media's desire to have Barack Obama re-elected at any cost and to take down any Republican candidate who stands in the way.
If Republicans are gonna sit by and watch Palin savaged, they'd better be prepared to sit by and watch the next one get savaged and the next one. Because that's what's coming. If the Republicans cannot defend themselves over this kind of scurrilous, baseless, libelous charge, they got no business running.Go to the links and read the whole thing to see why David Frum is tagged as the exemplar of a useful idiot. Wouldn't you like to see Jacobson and Frum is a dialogue on Bloggingheads? Frum has been on many times. Based on segment headings, he's never talked about Sarah Palin, though. Kind of odd, considering how hard it is not to talk about Sarah Palin. I'm going to recommend a Jacobson/Frum pairing. I think that would be quite delicious.
They'll not be able to elect anybody. If we shut up and be silent on this -- if we've got Republicans like Frum who will agree with the left-wing blogosphere and the mainstream media that Palin should shut up, that she should stop defending herself and it's a horrible travesty of just what Palin did; if we're gonna have Republicans sit around and give Obama credit for sitting by for four days while his allies try to take her out, then give a speech and get credit for the wonderful things he said about it -- then we got more idiots in our party than we would want to know....
This call for "civility"? They don't want us to be civil. They want us to be cowed. They want all of us to become Frumized.
I talk with Glenn Loury about the Arizona massacre.
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:
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:
Help me generate a list of smart, articulate Palin supporters who would do well in a Bloggingheads-type diavlog with a Palin-hater.
We were talking about the fact that Bloggingheads, despite endless talk about Sarah Palin, never has anyone on who actually supports her. But who could they have? It needs to be someone who would actually do it. You have to put up with and respond to whatever the other person throws at you in an unedited hour of telephone conversation. The pay is $0. Help me generate some names.
"You and I have each befriended each other on Facebook. And you will note that I am not using 'friend' as a verb."
Defining geezerhood, it's George Johnson:
Speaking of Facebook, "'The Social Network' Dominates Golden Globes." So the big movie of the year, the one that they were celebrating last night on television, as about something on the internet. Sorry. I didn't go out to the movie, and I didn't watch the TV awards show, because I was spending time on the internet — and I kind of think that was true of an awful lot of people.
Speaking of Facebook, "'The Social Network' Dominates Golden Globes." So the big movie of the year, the one that they were celebrating last night on television, as about something on the internet. Sorry. I didn't go out to the movie, and I didn't watch the TV awards show, because I was spending time on the internet — and I kind of think that was true of an awful lot of people.
"BHTV has had 100 DV (or it seems that way) on Palin and only one BHTV head has ever mounted a real defense of her."
"Althouse did it once. And only because no one else was available. I realize BHTV is a left-wing site, but damn - it gets boring."
An apt comment over at Bloggingheads.
ADDED: "DV" means "diavlog" — that is, a video'd conversation between 2 persons. BHTV supposedly pairs people from different or opposite sides, and there really is a vision of producing something like the "civility" we've been hearing so much about lately. But it seems like I'm go-to Palin defender over there. The commenter is wrong that I only did it once. I've done it many times, and I am not a big Palin supporter. I'm more of a big critic of Palin-hating, and there's been a lot of Palin-hating out there to criticize:
September 5, 2008: I defend Palin in a diavlog with Jane Hamsher.
October 14, 2008: In a diavlog with Ana Marie Cox, I argue that Palin is good for the country — even as I say I'm going to vote against her:
November 5, 2008: In a diavlog with Glenn Reynolds, we both defend Palin.
July 5, 2009: I push back when Michelle Goldberg goes all out against Palin.
November 19, 2009: I'm re-paired with Goldberg and consequently better prepared to push back when she attacks Palin. Famous fireworks in this one, when Goldberg doesn't like it when I — as they say — punch back twice as hard.
November 20, 2010: I'm the one BHTV chose to go up against the author of "Palinisms" (a book mocking Palin).
An apt comment over at Bloggingheads.
ADDED: "DV" means "diavlog" — that is, a video'd conversation between 2 persons. BHTV supposedly pairs people from different or opposite sides, and there really is a vision of producing something like the "civility" we've been hearing so much about lately. But it seems like I'm go-to Palin defender over there. The commenter is wrong that I only did it once. I've done it many times, and I am not a big Palin supporter. I'm more of a big critic of Palin-hating, and there's been a lot of Palin-hating out there to criticize:
September 5, 2008: I defend Palin in a diavlog with Jane Hamsher.
October 14, 2008: In a diavlog with Ana Marie Cox, I argue that Palin is good for the country — even as I say I'm going to vote against her:
November 5, 2008: In a diavlog with Glenn Reynolds, we both defend Palin.
July 5, 2009: I push back when Michelle Goldberg goes all out against Palin.
November 19, 2009: I'm re-paired with Goldberg and consequently better prepared to push back when she attacks Palin. Famous fireworks in this one, when Goldberg doesn't like it when I — as they say — punch back twice as hard.
November 20, 2010: I'm the one BHTV chose to go up against the author of "Palinisms" (a book mocking Palin).
Stray anti-Althousiana.
ADDED: Bashed that humungous melon-head into a wall? I feel sorry for the wall!
ADDED: Ironically, complimenting themselves on their civility, they are uncivil to me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
