Facts on the Ground
 

Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

Bob and Mickey should just ignore the commenters.

a) They're totally unrepresentative of the actual "viewer base."

b) Commenters, almost by their very nature, are digital piranha delighting not so much in truth, civility, or elevated meaning as in scoring points and hopefully extracting a little blood through artful or not-so-artful snark.

So, relax, you're real audience loves you.

I'd go on in this vein, but, having lifted up one corner of the argument, being good students, you can infer the other three.

Cheers (and thanks to BHTV for the access to so many deep conversations from so many different points of view),

EW

Mickey overstates Bob's wussiness.
 

I'm pretty sure Mickey is wrong, here, in saying Bob was all wetting-the-bed in fear of blowback after Saddam's death tape leaked.

For whatever reason, Dingalinks don't "take" on diavlogs past a certain vintage, but if one goes to this 1/3/07 diavlog and scroll to 2:08 within the first chapter ("Saddam cell phone snuff film"), Bob says, perfectly clamly and with little concern:
Now of course we could get some people in here to dispute the first lineBob said, but that's not the issue. One thing Bob certainly doesn't say is anything approximating what Mickey misattributes to him. So what's the deal Mickey? Why you gotta play Bob like that?

WTF
 

Mickey reads the second page of comments?!? I didn't think anyone read the second page of comments.

Re: Mickey overstates Bob's wussiness.
 

Bob, do you realize that when you throw in your 'immigrants?' question on what might be bothering Mickey, you automatically disqualify yourself by refusing to include the word 'iilegal'?

If you don't understand Mickey's position, how could you possibly begin to have a valid opinion on it?

Re: WTF
 

I look forward to seeing the traveling version of Bob vs Mickey next week.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

Says the first pirhana, uh, I mean, guy to post a comment.

Dingalinks and etymology
 

My moment of infamy, which Mickey attempts to undermine. For the record, I deny that Mickey is the finest American I have ever known, I deny ever having said that, and I call upon Mickey to produce documentation to back up his assertion. Which he can't do. Which he won't even try to do, because that one day last week of reading comments doubtless cleared his conscience for the next year.

The most modern pop-culture reference Bob has ever made!

Always good: Recognition of strengths and stating achievable corporate goals.

Unrelated: I have long had my suspicions about the true meaning of the name piscivorous. I am dubious that it has anything to do with dietary preferences, and instead expresses that said persona, in fact, claims to be something like a cunning linguist. Pisc, do you deny?

Re: Mickey overstates Bob's wussiness.
 

I'm glad that both Mickey and Bob used the term 'race' (re: eugenics) when what I'm hoping they meant was 'species'.

This at least precludes anyone demonizing the Mickster without also throwing Basra Bob under the bus.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

EastWest, don't be so hard on yourself. Your comments (the ones that don't mention Obama and his supporters) are always excellent.

Seriously, what forum(s) are you comparing this too? Civility seems higher, point-scoring snark is far less prominent and elevated meaning (especially on Sci Sats) is much more apparent on this forum than most of the other forums I have seen.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

And pedants! That would be "your real audience," not "you're."

I won't watch vlogs with Mickey anymore. Mickey is a bigot. Every time I hear his snide rants about Mexican immigrants, "welfare" and prisons, I want to vomit.

Bob is a serious thinker whose values I share and whose contributions to our intellectual culture I treasure. What on earth is he doing wasting his time with this schlub?

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

I agree.

I've only commented twice. The first time to chide Bob for giggling at Mormon holy garments. I was called a prude, and quickly scuttled back to my lurking spot.

In my second post I cheered the return of the weekly Mickey/Bob diavlogs, even confessing that I a few months ago I recognized Mickey's brother in our local supermarket (from BH.TV), and said to him that Bloggingheads rules. And now I learn that Mickey worries about those of us who cheered his more frequent visits--that perhaps we're a little off.

Hmmmm.

I'm still glad he's back. Even when they talk about nothing, I enjoy the banter. But perhaps I'll scuttle back to the no comment zone for another rest.

Mickey's tunnel vision on race...
 

It's interesting that the first and ONLY gripe Mickey mentioned with regard to racial views was blacks towards whites. Furthermore, when Bob mentioned that it may be an old school reaction by older blacks from the Jim Crow era faced severe racism in their daily lives, Mickey claimed "or it might just be a lazy habit". Anger and resentment at extreme, sometimes violent racism, is "a lazy habit"? For the record, I am not calling Mickey racist. Whenever you point out that someone's opinion on race doesn't jibe with reality, people like to minimize your statement by saying "what I'm a racist now?" It's a cheap trick that allows them to dodge the question.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

Grace:

Please feel free to comment more regularly. I don't remember the Mormon underwear comment, but I do remember the comment you posted about meeting Steve Kaus. That was a good one.

Chances are, if someone chides you, someone else will defend you. And of course, I'm sure you can defend yourself, as well. You'll see the occasional bit of snark and bombast, but don't take it too personally. Pretty much everyone that says obnoxious things is at least half-jesting. The few who aren't are just trolls hiding behind anonymity, and they can't hurt you.

Mickey is never to be taken seriously when he talks about anything to do with this site, particularly when referring to the commenters. That's just standard blogospheric abrasiveness.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

Wow, a positive referrence from Bob (unless that was sarcasm) and a visual taunt from Mickey. I'm truly honored. And mentioned in the company of Brendan, no less.

Today-ay-ay-ay...I consider myself-elf-elf-elf....the luckiest-est-est....

Re: WTF
 

Maybe he thought there would be pictures...like Playboy.

Re: WTF
 

Cheese and rice, not so loud. What if Mickey's mom hears?

Sadar or Maliki
 

While it is as of yet undetermined who has gained and who has lost, in the recent confrontation with JAM in southern Iraqi, it is the central government's troops that are now plying the streets of Basra, not JAM and that in its self might say something about who actually came out ahead.

There is this Sadr Rages Against Iran. He riles against Iranian interference in Iraqi with speculation running in a couple of different directions primarily about Iran given more support to Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and the Dawa. In this article it is political posturing on Sadar's part as the driver I have seen others where it is more that Iran told Sadar to cool his jets instead of the reputed brokered deal that seems to have ended the combat.

It is also reported, in not just the the article by the Kegans, that the Iraqi armed forces acquitted them self fairly well in the the confrontations in the smaller cities where there were problems. The offense itself, if the officially stated reasons are taken seriously both prior to fighting and restated after it had ceased, implies that the Iraqi government and it populace is growing tired of the type of Iranian influence that is causing havoc in the southern provinces of Iraq of playing one group against the other.

There is substantial and growing trade between Iran and Iraq. With the rather mild but targeted sanctions having a negative impact on the Iranian economy the trade with Iraq is important to keeping Iran's economy stable

Given these factors I'm not so sure at this point that the Iranians have quite as strong a hand or as great an influence as many are wont to claim.

Re: Mickey overstates Bob's wussiness.
 

"Basra Bob" = epic.

Re: Mickey overstates Bob's wussiness.
 

Intellectual history counts when a subsequent scholar credits the prior thinking with its influence, or when outside observers can make a better than merely reasonable case that a prior influence is at work. So, paradigm-shifting (Kuhn) thinking like Freud's, Darwin's, or Marx's, influences subsequent intellectual arguments for centuries. But, is then Hillary a fascist because of similarities between her ideals and fascism's doctrines?

Please, the square peg will still not fit into the round hole, despite the best efforts by those writers offering answers than the few intellectual writers asking questions.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

One of the reasons Mickey does not get a lot of favourable comments is
that he often has made it clear he does not read the comments.

I am sure that the majority of Blogginghead viewers do like Mickey
(how can one not like Mickey?)

Unfortunately the comments usually are skewed against Mickey
since there is a small contingent of loony-leftoids
who do most of the posting here.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

Was this post intended to have this strange stanza-like format? It reads like verse.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

All of life is a poem
if formatted properly.

Race
 

It's painful to listen to these guys discussing black people.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

Allan:

Speaking as one of the loony leftoids, allow me to make clear that I do, in fact, like Mickey. My criticism of him reflects disappointment in his recent performances. I would like to see him get his groove back, that's all.

It is also untrue, at least in my case, that the explanation for the negative commentary is related to his tendency not to read the comments. In fact, I posted what I did in the hope that someone would call it to his attention.

Re: Facts on the Ground
 

I was a bit troubled by Mr. Wright's seeming assertion that ideas don't matter. I don't intend to create a straw man here, but it seemed to me that this confounding "Marxist" notion was a centerpiece of this discussion. Ideas do matter. Ideas influence actors. Actors make history. Historical materialism is confirmation bias.

Re: Facts on the Ground
 

Memo to the Kaus-bashing grizzle-guts: as a relative newcomer to Bloggingheads, I’m in the enviable position of having watched back to back pretty much all of the Wright v. Kaus episodes since 2005 — all in the course of a month or so — so I can say with some confidence that the quality hasn’t dropped one bit.

Hillary and "The Family"
 

I'm interested that no one has even mentioned the segment having to do with Hillary's connection to that secretive religious group, The Family. Is it the sense of the commenters that there's no there there; i.e., who cares if politicians want to get together to pray? Or does it strike people as too much of a conspiracy theory to be believed? Or is just the case that people's impression of Hillary Clinton is that she makes political alliances wherever and whenever, solely motivated by pursuit of her political goals?

Re: Hillary and "The Family"
 

I think no one commented on Hillary's connection to The Family because it is so tenuous. The Family itself is pretty interesting and seems straight out of Carnivale, but going to an event they sponsor because other important people go to the same event is hardly surprising for a politician.

nerd rush
 

Hearing Bob say my username was a real highlight of my BHtv listening career. "Moose" is actually my nickname from college, and I'm from Louisiana, thus "LA Moose". Also, it sounds French.

Re: nerd rush
 

Good thing you weren't from Virginia.

Basra Bob
 

According to Gartenstein-Ross and Roggio, the press blew Basra (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/936meniz.asp), which would mean Bob followed suit. The time is coming when even Bob Wright will have to admit that something encouraging has happened in Iraq. In the meantime, it's great to have Bob and Mickey on weekly again; after all, they are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful bloggingheads I've ever viewed in my life.

Reality check for the "good news from Iraq" crowd...again!
 

http://tinyurl.com/4er9es


(There's nothing like dealing with folks who are "right" no matter how many times they get proven wrong.)

Re: Basra Bob
 

Weekly Standard: proud defender of freedom from fact-checking.

(-10 points to anyone who brings up Scott Beauchamp. There's still a difference between a "diarist" and a reporter.)

Re: Basra Bob
 

jeff:

I hope you aren't falling for the idea that the Weekly Standard is the only one telling the truth about Iraq. Please. You could not name another nationally-known media outlet that is more of an apologist for neocon propaganda.

Is their perspective worth something? Perhaps. But it's beyond lunacy to rely upon them as a sole source. Review Michael Goldfarb's last two diavlogs. Try to watch them honestly and critically. It should be apparent that he, like his colleagues at the WS, are determined to cling to the notion that the Iraq invasion was a good idea, things are going well, and the last five years don't count when making an assessment of the situation. Goldfarb never strays from this rigid position, and to the extent that I've read others on the WS site, ditto.

Re: Basra Bob
 

Top answer a two comments in one. First a direct reply is hilarious as you yourself admit where does your ability to watch any diavlog that has a conservative participant " honestly and critically."

Second While my diet does not run exclusively to fish or in the broader context sea food, it is high on my preference list of dietary substances. While I have never claimed "to be something like a cunning linguist" but I do believe that I have a fairly good work understand of American language and have been a reader of Readers Digest since childhood.

Re: Basra Bob
 

pisc:

First, the real comparison would be to ask me if I were able to watch a liberal participant honestly and critically. That is, I asked Jeff, whom I understood from his comment to be about as far to the right as I am to the left, to watch someone similar to his mindset and see if he could admit just how much Goldfarb was being a cheerleader. To this end, I think I'm fairly honest and critical in analyzing what most lefty diavloggers have to say.

There's another piece, too. We haven't really had anyone on that I can recall who is as nakedly partisan and as obviously obtuse to reality as Goldfarb is about the Iraq situation. I doubt you'll agree with me on this, since you seem to have the same tendency as Goldfarb to hunt for tiny nuggets of good news and present them as though they both represent the entirety of the current situation and absolve all of the mistakes from the past five years.

Since we can't agree on this, perhaps you would like to name someone whom you perceive as being the lefty equivalent of how I see Goldfarb. I don't think you'll be able to do it, since even the most obviously partisan diavloggers that I can think of -- Bill Scher, Rosa Brooks, for example -- have the classic liberal tendency to say, "You might be right about that." Well, now that I think about it, I guess I could agree that David Corn might be a match. I will point out, however, that I rarely stand up to defend the most extreme claims he makes, and I don't think I've ever offered him as a purported source for reporting on the facts. This last is what Jeff was doing with the Weekly Standard.

Back to your original point, I think I make an honest assessment of conservative diavloggers like Eli Lake, David Frum, Ross Douthat, Mickey Kaus, John McWhorter, Conn Carroll, Francis Fukuyama, Ramesh Ponnuru, Jim Pinkerton, Reihan Salam, Andrew Sullivan, and Eugene Volokh, as well as right-leaning libertarians like Daniel Drezner, Will Wilkinson, and Brink Lindsey. Seems to me I've agreed with points made by all of these people and have complimented them all at one time or another. Maybe you'll take exception to calling everyone listed conservative, but they're all well to the right of me.

Sorry you missed the joke. But I guess that serves as an adequate denial.

Re: Ignore the Commenters Mickey...
 

You sound like a great guy and the community here will miss your insightful and nuanced comments but there's no question that addressing that vomiting thing has to take priority.

Re: Facts on the Ground
 

Bob wasn't saying that ideas don't influence the actors who hold them. He was saying that ideas don't influence the actions of actors who don't hold them. In other words, if I hold idea A, and you want to argue that idea A will influence my actions in some way, it is fallacious to invoke some other idea B merely on the basis of a historical connection between A and B.

Bump
 

Just for the record, Bump (also known as Knockout) is not some strange cult game. It is nothing like croquet and is a game beloved by kids on blacktops across America.