As The Blogosphere Turns

Seems there's a bit of drama in the blogosphere. I'm still catching up myself, so the best I can do is link.

I'm not making any judgments. I wasn't there.

This lays out the background of the imbroglio. Seems to lay out the most about it, fact-wise, at least regarding the point of contention that caused all of this:

What happened is that since she had not joined several of us in the hospitality suite the previous night, she asked what we have been discussing until 2 am. Some of my tablemates at dinner told her that I had provoked a spirited debate (lasting perhaps and hour and a half) about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I had asserted that state-sanctioned racial segregation was so egregious a violation of the rights of black citizens that it was absolutely necessary for the federal government to intervene to smash it. The whole political point of libertarianism is to strictly limit the power of the state over individuals. Mandating racial segregation via state power (as was done in the Southern states) is precisely the kind of state tyranny that libertarians detest. In any case, I think she found my view of the Civil Rights Act agreeable. During the discussion in the hospitality suite, absolutely no one defended state-sanctioned segregation and all agreed that Federal intervention was necessary to outlaw state-enforced Jim Crow segregation.

...

Anyway next thing I know, Ann Althouse is shouting at two of our dinner companions demanding that they prove to her (Althouse) that they are not racists! She kept asking over and over, "How do I know that I'm not sitting at a table full of racists?" This was completely bizarre! It should go without saying, but I will say it: No one at the conference could even remotely be accused of being racist.

Apparently, the three of them had been discussing the constitutionality of the public accommodations sections of the Civil Rights Act that forbids private businesses to racially discriminate among customers. That is an interesting issue where people ask serious questions about how to balance state intervention and individual choice.

...

In trying to explain to Althouse why private discrimination might be OK, I later pieced together that my tablemates had posed the question of whether or not Althouse would want to have the right to refuse to serve KKK members if she owned a restaurant--say, the KKK members were planning to have a weekly luncheon meeting at her cafe? My interpretation of what happened is that because she didn't want to appear to be hypocrite, she refused to answer and kept asking more and more abstract questions about their example. When she was backed into a corner, she lashed out, suggesting that people who disagreed with her feelings were racists. Eventually, she was so upset that she began crying. Of course, at that point the possibility of civil intellectual discourse completely evaporated.

Okay, so there you go. I don't know if that's all correct, but that seems to be how all of this started.

Althouse's post on the conservative-libertarian debate she attended.

Which Jonah Goldberg then characterizes, gingerly it seems, as "odd."

Cathy Seipp wondering why Althouse began crying.

Virgnia Postrel (the Dynamist) calling Althouse a "diva" who has "hissy-fits."

Althouse's rebuttal to Postrel, calling her a "diva" as well. Perhaps first. I don't know.

Like I said, still catching up. I have no idea if this is even worth linking. I guess I'll know soon enough.

Thanks to PetiteDov.

Where's Allah on this? He usually digs these sorts of scraps.

All of this could have been avoided if the womenfolk (including Jonah Goldberg) had been were God intended them to be, makin' sandwiches, makin' babies, and makin' with the hush-face.

posted by Ace at 07:49 PM

| Access Comments