Be Seeing You (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

[Bloggingheads]

[Ocean]

Here's for the main theme.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Here's for the main theme.

Awesome! Thanks!

Gosh, based on the first two minutes of hilarious banter, this looks like it's going to be a good one. It's always great to see the Founders together.

[harkin]

Mickey's drug war prediction was slightly off, he should have said the violence will be escalated with guns supplied by Obama's DOJ, resulting not in anyone taking responsibility but cries of racism towards anyone offering criticism.

Bob, if the Tea Party is damaging the conservative cause you'll have to admit the Occutards, with the bills now due for their babysitting, cleanup etc have done exponential damage to the statists (even with a cheerleading MSM).

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

Bob, if the Tea Party is damaging the conservative cause you'll have to admit the Occutards, with the bills now due for their babysitting, cleanup etc have done exponential damage to the statists (even with a cheerleading MSM).

If only that were true but it's not. A world gone mad.

[redpeakpass]

Harkin, that is just sad. I hope, for your sake, that someone is paying you to post this drivel.

[harkin]

As always, the links are wanting. Here's a nice breakdown of Obama's ridiculously disingenuous Osawatomie speech declaring America's problems being the result of a "you're on your own" system:

"This is a deliciously perverse analysis of the situation confronting America and a fin de civilisation West. In what area of life are Americans now “on their own”? By 2008, Fannie and Freddie had a piece of over half the mortgages in this country; the “subprime” mortgage was an invention of government. America’s collective trillion dollars of college debt has been ramped up by government distortion of the student-loan market. Likewise, health care, where Americans labor under the misapprehension that they have a “private” system rather than one whose inflationary pressures and byzantine bureaucracy are both driven largely by remorseless incremental government annexation. Americans are ever less “on their own” in housing, education, health, and most other areas of life — and the present moribund slough is the direct consequence"

Instead they bother trying to find something said by E J Dioone that resembles the truth?

Originally Posted by redpeakpass

Harkin, that is just sad. I hope, for your sake, that someone is paying you to post this drivel.

Why is it the statists never understand self-sufficiency and free will (and always refuse to counter with argument, relying instead on the ad hominem)?

Unlike the Occutards and union members, I do not require that someone pay me to express an opinion, transport me to gatherings, provide me free food or posters, babysit myself and my compatriots, nor clean up my mess.

Rest assured however that while Bob is pleading for drastic raising of tax rates and Obama/Pelosi etc are enjoying their Wall St/Hollywood connections and vacationing in luxury, Eric Holder is still being paid to enforce the law.

[Florian]

Happy New Year to everyone. Best of luck to Bob and looking forward to the future of bhtv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Kvu...eature=related

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Florian

Happy New Year to everyone. Best of luck to Bob and looking forward to the future of bhtv.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Kvu...eature=related

Your link doesn't work here (?). But here's another.

Bonne année!

[ginger baker]

another enjoyable dvlog by Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus. Regarding Steve Jobs: iSOdontcarethatmuch. And, I must interject, Robert Cray is a great talent, surely not in the style of SRV, but very, very good. So there.

[ohreally]

Originally Posted by ginger baker

another enjoyable dvlog by Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus. Regarding Steve Jobs: iSOdontcarethatmuch. And, I must interject, Robert Cray is a great talent, surely not in the style of SRV, but very, very good. So there.

Agreed. Phone booth is a terrific blues number.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE4pfdu-wpA

Like SRV his biggest influence is Albert King but Robert Cray has his gear set up all wrong. His tinny sound can be grating. Short of tuning down half a tone and starting with 0.013 up with a pair of Marshall Major 200 watts heads backed by stacks of Fenders, he could ask Santana for advice on how to get a deep tone without killing his fingers. Still, a fine bluesman.

[bjkeefe]

... that's the best section title I've read in years:

BREAKING: Bloggingheads.tv will live on!

[Wonderment]

Which candidate is more likely to fuck over poor Mexican families.

Don't worry, Real Americans. Mickey has your back, ensuring that drunk Mexicans in a bar are not plotting a takeover of our homeland:

And the third thing—which is very controversial, which you can’t bring up—is we’re right next door to Mexico. Fifty percent of our illegal immigrants are from Mexico. In any other place in the world, you would say that’s a recipe for trouble, to have huge influxes of Mexicans living in an area that is adjacent to Mexico. One day they may want to be part of Mexico and they want more of an affiliation with Mexico.

reason: So you worry about a reconquista?

Kaus: Reconquista is a little—a little extreme. If you talk to people in Mexico, I’m told, if you get them drunk in a bar, they’ll say we’re taking it back, sorry. That’s not an uncommon sentiment in Mexico, so why can’t we take it seriously here?

[Kevin]

Thanks for excerpting this. It's a good antidote for oversentimentalizing the Founders just because I like BhTV so much.

[Kevin]

I'm glad to hear that there may still be the foot traffic and churn of various new authors and profs, some of the time at least. The mixture of recurring pairings, Bobs, weekly series and being dropped in at the deep end of something you've never heard of, is pretty awesome. And difficult to pull off, so thank you Sang Ngo.

I do enjoy the line of reasoning that slick messaging is odious, and fumbling it a bit indicates a realness and decency. Sounds good to me.

I'm sorry to hear that people are losing hours. Hope everyone is all right.

What happens to the archives?? It's tremendously rich. Historians are going to be interested in them someday, for one thing. Keep the 2005-2011 canon safe, please!

[jimM47]

I can vindicate Mickey's prediction about politifact.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by jimM47

I can vindicate Mickey's prediction about politifact.

I've been reading and agreeing with all sorts of pushback on this point from Liberal blogs. I don't know who I'm reading that Bob isn't, but Mickey is definitely not making this up.

[jeffpeterson]

One idea for regulating the comments that might also enhance the sustainability issue would be to do what the Ricochet site does and charge a nominal sum for the privilege of commenting (it's about $4 monthly or a discounted $30 a year at Ricochet). That seems to work pretty well at weeding out trolls and riffraff.

[Globalcop]

Originally Posted by jeffpeterson

One idea for regulating the comments that might also enhance the sustainability issue would be to do what the Ricochet site does and charge a nominal sum for the privilege of commenting (it's about $4 monthly or a discounted $30 a year at Ricochet). That seems to work pretty well at weeding out trolls and riffraff.

Who said anything about "regulating the comments?" In fact Bob said they're going to be open to an even wider group of "outsiders."

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by jeffpeterson

One idea for regulating the comments that might also enhance the sustainability issue would be to do what the Ricochet site does and charge a nominal sum for the privilege of commenting (it's about $4 monthly or a discounted $30 a year at Ricochet). That seems to work pretty well at weeding out trolls and riffraff.

The problem with this is that charging a fee or requiring subscriptions tends to greatly increase the insularity of a site. It can be countered by at least letting people read without subscribing, but not completely.

I still think that more could be done to encourage subscriptions and donations, though -- even just having a visible "SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE" button in the forum and at the top of the diavlog page. I realize that this may be mooted by the changes in the forum to come. That donations will be tax deductible going forward is a selling point too.

In addition to this, I think a message at the beginning of the podcasts encouraging donations (like with some public radio related podcasts) or even ads for the podcasts would be possible (the Slate podcasts all have sponsors, for example). I'm not sure how many people listen to the podcast form rather than watch the diavlogs, but I often do, and wouldn't mind hearing from a sponsor or a plea to donate.

[Unit]

Originally Posted by jeffpeterson

One idea for regulating the comments that might also enhance the sustainability issue would be to do what the Ricochet site does and charge a nominal sum for the privilege of commenting (it's about $4 monthly or a discounted $30 a year at Ricochet). That seems to work pretty well at weeding out trolls and riffraff.

Great proposal! Put your money where your mouth is!

I'd be on board with this.

[jimM47]

Bob and Mickey did in under 9 minutes most of what the lost Commenter Klatch that my computer ate did in 20 minutes. I'll add a few extra comments that Bob mentioned in the lost diavlog that were's here before:

* Bob has already signed up a bunch of people who have promised to provide regularly monthly (or more frequent) contributions, where the main host is responsible for setting up conversations, sort of like the Week in Blog is now or like Free Will was in the past. These regular contributors will have identifiable "shows." Some of these hosts will come from (or possibly be) other institutions like magazines and think thanks, and the embedded player will be co-branded with the name of that institution. You may also see these co-branded episodes around the web, being promoted by those institutions (much like Bob's episodes will be "The Wright Show" and will appear on Slate). The new front page layout will help accommodate this branding, and also accomodate the fact that episodes might not always arrive at steady 24-hr intervals. [To clarify, though, all of this content will continue to be centrally located at the bh.tv site as well.]

* Bloggingheads is going to transition to the recording setup you saw in this diavlog between Mickey and Bob, where the two of them can see each other, and one of the diavloggers is left at the end with a more complete file of the conversation — previously each participant at the end only had their own side of the conversation. This is going to facilitate letting diavloggers do more of the work of identifying conversation topics. In the future, the topic headings also may not be ding-a-links with both and begin-point and an end-point. Many will just be a begin-point.

* Bob issued a heart-felt thank-you to all of the bh.tv viewers who contributed to the site following the call he made in the divalog with Aryeh. The contributions by individual viewers alone wouldn't be able to run the site long-term, but they were a real boon to bh.tv. Bob related to me how dark times were approaching at the end of the year, and there was a shortfall in the accounts that made it uncertain that Bloggingheads was going to be able to make it through the end of the year before the new Non-Profit started up. But when the donations came in, they cured the shortfall. Bob compared the feeling he got watching the donations come in to the end of "It's a Wonderful Life." It was pretty adorable. So thanks to all who donated!

[Robert Wright]

Thanks for this summary, Jim.

If I said we've "signed up a bunch of people" to contribute regularly, I overstated the case. But it's true that a number of people have expressed interest, and we hope that the results will be evident toward the end of January. Meanwhile, we'll work hard to line up enough of the more traditional programming (i.e., individually orchestrated) to keep the site dynamic.

Thanks especially for relating the 'Wonderful Life' story. It really is true that my wife had just told me we might be more than $1,000 shy of what we needed to pay all the workers through the end of the year, when, lo and behold, enough money to fill that need showed up. After I finished the diavlog with Mickey, I immediately regretted having forgotten to mention this.

Thanks to all those who made donations, and Happy New Year to everyone!

Bob

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Robert Wright

Thanks to all those who made donations, and Happy New Year to everyone!

Bob

Bob, my donation was not a donation; it was a quid pro quo. I will be expecting a package in the mail shortly.

[whburgess]

Bob provide a great assessment of Ron Paul's foreign policy.
Let this serve as a 'teachable moment' for those liberals on this board who allowed their disagreement with Paul's domestic conservative/libertarianism to lead them to portray this classic libertarian, who is the least sympathetic of the entire political field (including Obama) to Kaus and others obsessed with illegal immigrants, and who is the purist free trader of the entire political field, as, of all things, a 'nativist' or 'isolationist'.

The recent discussions, from the liberal commentors in this forum, regarding Ron Paul, is great example of how ideological identity can lead to huge blind spots.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Bob provide a great assessment of Ron Paul's foreign policy.
Let this serve as a 'teachable moment' for those liberals on this board who allowed their disagreement with Paul's domestic conservative/libertarianism to lead them to portray this classic libertarian, who is the least sympathetic of the entire political field (including Obama) to Kaus and others obsessed with illegal immigrants, and who is the purist free trader of the entire political field, as, of all things, a 'nativist' or 'isolationist'.

The recent discussions, from the liberal commentors in this forum, regarding Ron Paul, is great example of how ideological identity can lead to huge blind spots.

Well, Bob better prepare himself for heavy artillery because if it's anything like what I've faced from Forum liberals over the past few months for admiring and supporting Paul's foreign policy views (much as I disagree with him on many other issues), I can assure Bob that the response will be relentlessly hostile.

I'm sure Twin Swords will soon enough be pointing out to Bob (and Glenn and John) that "Monster" Paul and the "Paultards" real agenda is to trick Americans into destroying democracy and restoring racist and homophobic law and order for private elites.

I think I now understand why some liberals are far more upset than Republicans with support for Paul's views that are to the left of Obama on key issues like peace, immigration reform and the war on drugs. Mainstream Republicans have the luxury of humoring Ron Paul; liberals, on the other hand, must fear him because if he runs as an independent he could contribute significantly to Obama's defeat. This, I think, is a legitimate (albeit premature) concern. As someone who prefers Obama with all his shortcomings to Romney (much less Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann or Santorum who are all worse than Romney), I too would be worried by a third party candidate who'd weaken the Dems. On the other hand:

If Mr. Paul was a legitimate candidate in a general election, we could finally have an honest debate about campaign finance reform, military spending, torture of enemy combatants, immigration, the Federal Reserve, free trade agreements, gay marriage and prison sentences for drug use. These issues are just the tip of the iceberg of themes that are glazed over with gimmick answers and worthless slogans in normal presidential debates.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I think I now understand why some liberals are far more upset than Republicans with support for Paul's views that are to the left of Obama on key issues like peace, immigration reform and the war on drugs. Mainstream Republicans have the luxury of humoring Ron Paul; liberals, on the other hand, must fear him because if he runs as an independent he could contribute significantly to Obama's defeat. This, I think, is a legitimate (albeit premature) concern. As someone who prefers Obama with all his shortcomings to Romney (much less Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann or Santorum who are all worse than Romney), I too would be worried by a third party candidate who'd weaken the Dems.

I think you may be overgeneralizing from some of the discussions here. A Paul third party candidacy is going to harm repubicans much more than dems. He's only to the left of Obama on "peace" if Pat Buchanan is. The war on drugs I will give you, but Paul's support of untrammeled immigration is based on his assessment that liberal critiques of immigration are correct; that it is an effective way of depressing wages for everyone except a few elites. Whether that proposition is true or not, it's clearly the basis for Ron Paul's support of open borders. He doesn't give a flying f**k about Mexicans' attempts to have a better life. he cares about the poor multinational that has the oppressive burden of paying people a living wage.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

He doesn't give a flying f**k about Mexicans' attempts to have a better life.

I wish you would research before saying things like this. This is the equivalent of saying he hates education because he wants to abolish the Dept of Education. BTW, Robert Wright just named Ron Paul his Hero of the Year.

Heads Exploooooode.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I wish you would research before saying things like this. This is the equivalent of saying he hates education because he wants to abolish the Dept of Education.

I have no belief that he hates education. I do believe that he is indifferent to the well-being of mexicans and that concern for their well-being is immaterial to his beliefs about immigration. I think his primary motivation is reducing the cost of labor for corporations. I don't see how a link to a good act on his part is proof of anything one way or the other about his views on immigration. It doesn't even say anything one way or the other about his views on race, not that that's relevant to this discussion. I don't much care whether some of his best patients are Black.

NVM, I see what you mean. I like Bob a lot; I don't think he's infallible. Ditto Wonderment, for that matter.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I do believe that he is indifferent to the well-being of mexicans and that concern for their well-being is immaterial to his beliefs about immigration.

This is not true. You have to recognize that the entire media is stacked against Paul so you're not going to understand his positions through ordinary sources. It's not some evil conspiracy against Paul, but it's a path of least resistance by the media that makes his positions difficult to know unless you research him yourself.

I think his primary motivation is reducing the cost of labor for corporations. I don't see how a link to a good act on his part is proof of anything one way or the other about his views on immigration.

You must seek to understand before you criticize. Unless you can articulate RP's positions first and his justifications for them, any criticism will not be germane to the issue.

It doesn't even say anything one way or the other about his views on race, not that that's relevant to this discusison.

He doesn't give a shit about race, just like I don't give a shit about race. Libertarians are about recognizing human rights first. If we are all equal, there is no need to subdivide into categories like black, gay, woman, minority, etc. That's your Democratic Party's tactics.

Do you have a link to Bob's nomination?

It's a long diavlog, but it's somewhere in/around the Heroes and Villains of 2011.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

This is not true. You have to recognize that the entire media is stacked against Paul so you're not going to understand his positions through ordinary sources.
....
You must seek to understand before you criticize. Unless you can articulate RP's positions first and his justifications for them, any criticism will not be germane to the issue.

I actually have to apologise to you, Wonderment, and I guess Dr. Paul. I had taken wonderment on his word that Dr. Paul is to the left of Obama on immigration. From a strictly labor rights perspective, it may be correct, but that's not what Wonderment was talking about. I fail to see how abolishing birthright citizenship puts Paul to the left of Obama on immigration.

So, my error was in taking the words of Paul's supporters (or whatever we want to call wonderment wrt Paul). It's not a crazy thing to do, but turns out to have been wrong. I guess I underestimated Wonderment's naivete where Dr. Paul is concerned.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I actually have to apologise to you, Wonderment, and I guess Dr. Paul. I had taken wonderment on his word that Dr. Paul is to the left of Obama on immigration. From a strictly labor rights perspective, it may be correct, but that's not what Wonderment was talking about. I fail to see how abolishing birthright citizenship puts Paul to the left of Obama on immigration.

So, my error was in taking the words of Paul's supporters (or whatever we want to call wonderment wrt Paul). It's not a crazy thing to do, but turns out to have been wrong. I guess I underestimated Wonderment's naivete where Dr. Paul is concerned.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

I'm starting to suspect that some people have fallen to a new disease that manifests by becoming RonPaul-delusional. Whatever longing they have for certain kind of policy or principle, they plainly project it onto RP. Reality is secondary. And then they say that it is those of us who don't like him or his ideas, that are mistaken or wrong, or mislead by media, or misinterpreting him.

No, I haven't gotten to the point where Bob states that RP is hero of the year. Disappointing to hear if true.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I'm starting to suspect that some people have fallen to a new disease that manifests by becoming RonPaul-delusional. Whatever longing they have for certain kind of policy or principle, they plainly project it onto RP. Reality is secondary. And then they say that it is those of us who don't like him or his ideas, that are mistaken or wrong, or mislead by media, or misinterpreting him.

No, I haven't gotten to the point where Bob states that RP is hero of the year. Disappointing to hear if true.

Change the parts in bold to Barack Obama and I'd say you're onto something.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Change the parts in bold to Barack Obama and I'd say you're onto something.

Let's do it this way. I'll show you what I'm talking about in this thread, since it is this thread that I referred to.

Pay attention to the conversation:

Originally Posted by whburgess

Bob provide a great assessment of Ron Paul's foreign policy.
Let this serve as a 'teachable moment' for those liberals on this board who allowed their disagreement with Paul's domestic conservative/libertarianism to lead them to portray this classic libertarian, who is the least sympathetic of the entire political field (including Obama) to Kaus and others obsessed with illegal immigrants, and who is the purist free trader of the entire political field, as, of all things, a 'nativist' or 'isolationist'.

The recent discussions, from the liberal commentors in this forum, regarding Ron Paul, is great example of how ideological identity can lead to huge blind spots.

Of course, you could say that Ron, being such a good boy, as soon as he found out he got an "F" , rushed to turn an extra credit assignment to see if he could make it to A+.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I think I now understand why some liberals are far more upset than Republicans with support for Paul's views that are to the left of Obama on key issues like peace, immigration reform and the war on drugs.

miceelf reminiscing of the old RP, responds:

Originally Posted by miceelf

... but Paul's support of untrammeled immigration is based on his assessment that liberal critiques of immigration are correct; that it is an effective way of depressing wages for everyone except a few elites. Whether that proposition is true or not, it's clearly the basis for Ron Paul's support of open borders. He doesn't give a flying f**k about Mexicans' attempts to have a better life. he cares about the poor multinational that has the oppressive burden of paying people a living wage.

And:

Originally Posted by miceelf

I have no belief that he hates education. I do believe that he is indifferent to the well-being of mexicans and that concern for their well-being is immaterial to his beliefs about immigration. I think his primary motivation is reducing the cost of labor for corporations. I don't see how a link to a good act on his part is proof of anything one way or the other about his views on immigration. It doesn't even say anything one way or the other about his views on race, not that that's relevant to this discussion. I don't much care whether some of his best patients are Black.

NVM, I see what you mean. I like Bob a lot; I don't think he's infallible. Ditto Wonderment, for that matter.

SK responds:

Originally Posted by sugarkang

This is not true. You have to recognize that the entire media is stacked against Paul so you're not going to understand his positions through ordinary sources. It's not some evil conspiracy against Paul, but it's a path of least resistance by the media that makes his positions difficult to know unless you research him yourself.

You must seek to understand before you criticize. Unless you can articulate RP's positions first and his justifications for them, any criticism will not be germane to the issue.

He doesn't give a shit about race, just like I don't give a shit about race. Libertarians are about recognizing human rights first. If we are all equal, there is no need to subdivide into categories like black, gay, woman, minority, etc. That's your Democratic Party's tactics.

So miceelf learns his lesson, and instead of believing the delusions expressed by the other commenters, he goes to the source to find out what RP's position on immigration is:

Originally Posted by miceelf

I actually have to apologise to you, Wonderment, and I guess Dr. Paul. I had taken wonderment on his word that Dr. Paul is to the left of Obama on immigration. From a strictly labor rights perspective, it may be correct, but that's not what Wonderment was talking about. I fail to see how abolishing birthright citizenship puts Paul to the left of Obama on immigration.

So, my error was in taking the words of Paul's supporters (or whatever we want to call wonderment wrt Paul). It's not a crazy thing to do, but turns out to have been wrong. I guess I underestimated Wonderment's naivete where Dr. Paul is concerned.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

In case it isn't clear:

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

See what the delusions is? This is not an abstract idea about one's favorites candidates and soft biases. It's delusional.

But, who cares? Right? It's almost 2012!

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by Ocean

...

I feel bad. I was just trying to rib you a bit about the president, and here you go constructing a well-reasoned refutation of my joke.

The truth is I have no dog in the Ron Paul fight. He's an interesting voice to have in the Republican conversation, but that's all. He's little more than a sideshow, and given his unconventional (i.e., isolationist) foreign policy views, he has absolutely no chance of being the Republican nominee. I suppose he could be a spoiler and end up putting Obama back in the White House in a close contest, but honestly I think he's not got much support beyond his devoted band of libertarian Internet activists.

Robert Wright, for his part, continually amuserates me -- that's a cross between "amuse" and "exasperates" -- with his touching paeans to the United Nations.

Sanctions against Iran might push the poor dears to start a WAR! Oh, my. We really should try to be more sympathetic to the mullahs. They have a right to their atomic toys, after all. Only action from the U.N. -- a body that held moment of silence in tribute to that renowned statesman Kim Jong-il -- is legitimate. Charming. Mr. Wright, I love what you do here on Bhtv, but man you're naive!

Sorry, I digress.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

I feel bad. I was just trying to rib you a bit about the president, and here you go constructing a well-reasoned refutation of my joke.

The truth is I have no dog in the Ron Paul fight. He's an interesting voice to have in the Republican conversation, but that's all. He's little more than a sideshow, and given his unconventional (i.e., isolationist) foreign policy views, he has absolutely no chance of being the Republican nominee. I suppose he could be a spoiler and end up putting Obama back in the White House in a close contest, but honestly I think he's not got much support beyond his devoted band of libertarian Internet activists.

Robert Wright, for his part, continually amuserates me -- that's a cross between "amuse" and "exasperates" -- with his touching paeans to the United Nations.

Sanctions against Iran might push the poor dears to start a WAR! Oh, my. We really should try to be more sympathetic to the mullahs. They have a right to their atomic toys, after all. Only action from the U.N. -- a body that held moment of silence in tribute to that renowned statesman Kim Jong-il -- is legitimate. Charming. Mr. Wright, I love what you do here on Bhtv, but man you're naive!

Sorry, I digress.

Hmmm... I'll digress more. I wish I could have changed those blue eyes to brown eyes to be a bit more realistic... hmmm...

[Florian]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Robert Wright, for his part, continually amuserates me -- that's a cross between "amuse" and "exasperates" -- with his touching paeans to the United Nations.

Sanctions against Iran might push the poor dears to start a WAR! Oh, my. We really should try to be more sympathetic to the mullahs. They have a right to their atomic toys, after all. Only action from the U.N. -- a body that held moment of silence in tribute to that renowned statesman Kim Jong-il -- is legitimate. Charming. Mr. Wright, I love what you do here on Bhtv, but man you're naive!

Sorry, I digress.

Indeed you do digress. You amuserate me too.

Sanctions against Iran could very well lead to war, if they push Iran to impose a blockade in the Persian Gulf. I didn't hear Bob say that the mullahs had a "right" to their atomic toys. If he said such a thing, he was of course mistaken. But you are mistaken if you think that any other possessor of atomic toys has a "right" to prevent Iran from acquiring them. "Right" presupposes that there is a sovereign body, a federation of nations in short---that has the "right," because it has the authority, to impose its will on all its members, by force if necessary. In the absence of such a sovereign body, there is only force that can decide the issue.

I agree that the United Nations is often a pitiful organisation--the moment of silence for the Kim Jong II was abject---but it is better than nothing.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by Florian

Indeed you do digress. You amuserate me too.

Sanctions against Iran could very well lead to war, if they push Iran to impose a blockade in the Persian Gulf.

Iran is a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, the terms of which obligate nonnuclear weapons states to foreswear them in exchange for assistance with civilian nuclear energy. The Iranians have been offered such assistance numerous times, only to reject it in favor of a covert nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has found Iran in violation of the terms of the NPT. If Tehran it is allowed to flout that treaty without consequence — a course of action Mr. Wright appears to be advocating — the treaty isn't worth the paper it is written on. We can then look forward to, at the very least, a regional arms race as Iran's rivals seek their own nuclear insurance policies.

Wright's apparent solution seems to be: Do nothing. Pretty dangerous, if you ask me. As the number of official and unofficial nuclear weapons states increases, the chances for fatal miscalculation involving nuclear weapons rises exponentially. And that's not even considering the possibility of such weapons falling into the hands of nonstate actors, some of whom have an apocalyptic worldview.

Sanctions are an effort to raise the cost of Iran's misbehavior and change it, short of war. But if it comes to shooting, it will be Iran, by attempting to close an international waterway, that will be committing the first act of agression.

This is all bluster, anyway. I don't believe the Iranians are capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Their saber-rattling is aimed at getting hand-wringers like Mr. Wright to knuckle under to nuclear blackmail. It's pathetic that he's willing, nay eager, to do so, but thankfully he won't be making that decision. President Obama, one must hope, understands the stakes.

I didn't hear Bob say that the mullahs had a "right" to their atomic toys. If he said such a thing, he was of course mistaken. But you are mistaken if you think that any other possessor of atomic toys has a "right" to prevent Iran from acquiring them.

Of course, not. I was using hyperbole. Mr. Wright doesn't want Iran to have nukes. He just pleads for us to "understand" Iran's pique at the fact that states like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea can have them and they can't. Nor is he wiling to countenance us doing anything to stop them from getting such weapons.

One wonders what he thinks might be sufficient incentive for Iran to give up its weapons program. Perhaps the U.S. should close its bases in the region and sponsor a U.N. resolution stripping Israel of its statehood? Even then, it might not be persuaded.

"Right" presupposes that there is a sovereign body, a federation of nations in short---that has the "right," because it has the authority, to impose its will on all its members, by force if necessary. In the absence of such a sovereign body, there is only force that can decide the issue.

I agree that the United Nations is often a pitiful organisation--the moment of silence for the Kim Jong II was abject---but it is better than nothing.

In an ideal world, I'd be inclined to agree. But as you acknowledge, we are not in an ideal world. It would be best if the U.N. Security Council would show the courage of its NPT convictions and impose comprehensive sanctions against Iran until that country agrees to abide by its treaty commitments.

But the Security Council includes such paragons of virtue as Russia and China, who are, as we speak, blocking sanctions or even a condemnation of Assad's bloodletting in Syria. One cannot realistically hope for help from that quarter regarding Iran.

In the absence of a functioning "federation of nations" capable and willing to enforce its own treaties, a confederation of democratic states willing and able to do so is the best alternative — and far superior to letting Iran, a rogue state par excellence flout its international treaty obligations with impunity.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Iran is a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, the terms of which obligate nonnuclear weapons states to foreswear them in exchange for assistance with civilian nuclear energy. The Iranians have been offered such assistance numerous times, only to reject it in favor of a covert nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has found Iran in violation of the terms of the NPT. If Tehran it is allowed to flout that treaty without consequence — a course of action Mr. Wright appears to be advocating — the treaty isn't worth the paper it is written on. We can then look forward to, at the very least, a regional arms race as Iran's rivals seek their own nuclear insurance policies.

Wright's apparent solution seems to be: Do nothing. Pretty dangerous, if you ask me. As the number of official and unofficial nuclear weapons states increases, the chances for fatal miscalculation involving nuclear weapons rises exponentially. And that's not even considering the possibility of such weapons falling into the hands of nonstate actors, some of whom have an apocalyptic worldview.

Sanctions are an effort to raise the cost of Iran's misbehavior and change it, short of war. But if it comes to shooting, it will be Iran, by attempting to close an international waterway, that will be committing the first act of agression.

This is all bluster, anyway. I don't believe the Iranians are capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Their saber-rattling is aimed at getting hand-wringers like Mr. Wright to knuckle under to nuclear blackmail. It's pathetic that he's willing, nay eager, to do so, but thankfully he won't be making that decision. President Obama, one must hope, understands the stakes.

Of course, everything you say is correct up to the last paragraph, although I think you are exaggerating the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. And I doubt that Wright is quite as naive as you paint him. You yourself may be a little naive, however, if you think that the US, alone or in a coalition with other nations, can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons by imposing sanctions.

Of course, not. I was using hyperbole. Mr. Wright doesn't want Iran to have nukes. He just pleads for us to "understand" Iran's pique at the fact that states like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea can have them and they can't. Nor is he wiling to countenance us doing anything to stop them from getting such weapons.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is just that... a treaty, i.e. worth no more than the "word" of the government that signed it. If the Iranian leadership decides, or has already decided, that it must have nuclear weapons for self-defense or deterrence, it can only be stopped by sanctions or by force (war).

In an ideal world, I'd be inclined to agree. But as you acknowledge, we are not in an ideal world. It would be best if the U.N. Security Council would show the courage of its NPT convictions and impose comprehensive sanctions against Iran until that country agrees to abide by its treaty commitments.

But the Security Council includes such paragons of virtue as Russia and China, who are, as we speak, blocking sanctions or even a condemnation of Assad's bloodletting in Syria. One cannot realistically hope for help from that quarter regarding Iran.

In the absence of a functioning "federation of nations" capable and willing to enforce its own treaties, a confederation of democratic states willing and able to do so is the best alternative — and far superior to letting Iran, a rogue state par excellence flout its international treaty obligations with impunity.

I agree that a confederation is the only realistic possibility in the near term. But a confederation still faces the same problem as an alliance of states: persuasion? sanctions? war?

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by Florian

...

But a confederation still faces the same problem as an alliance of states: persuasion? sanctions? war?

I a agree it's a conundrum. Let us hope we do not face this test in 2012, or any subsequent year.

Je vous souhaite une bonne anée!

Hope I didn't mangle that too badly. It's been a long while.