Penny For Your Thoughts (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

[Bloggingheads]

[BornAgainDemocrat]

This is sad. How about a Paypal button? Rattle the cup.

[superluminous]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

This is sad. How about a Paypal button? Rattle the cup.

So I am one of those long time listeners, who came out of the woodworks, on hearing about the end of BH as we know it!
Bob, you have a great thing going here. I hope this continues, precisely for the reasons you mentioned in you DV with Mickey, that people like to confirm their views and sites do this do well on the internets. What is missing is a place like BH. We need it, and more like it.

Some ideas for getting revenue:
1. In this age of short attention span, fight for eyeballs etc, you have the undivided attention of the viewer/listener for 50 min on average (or at least 15 min if the viewer chooses to listen to a particular topic). This has to be valuable. Ad placements could work. Trust me I waste enough time viewing ads before far more uninteresting stuff on the web.
I have bought multiple books after hearing about it on BH. Is there anyway you can keep tabs on this.

2. BH frequently broadcast DVs featuring speakers from various think-tanks. Correct me if I am wrong but don't these flush organizations spend not an insignificant amount of money to broadcast their policies/ideas. Isn't it in their interest to support a medium that not only gets their ideas to the public but also encourages dialogue with like minded or otherwise policy institutes? And I am sure you have enough contacts at such places via. their participation in BH.

3. Lastly, yes think about having a viewer support button. Explore other sources, but viewers can support some part of the yearly budget. I am sure many of the participants themselves have gained from the diavlogs and will not be shy to contribute. It is difficult to put a price on ideas and creative juice flow after a stimulating conversation. But I am sure it brought them blog/story ideas, research ideas, etc.

I understand Bobs reticence to go down this path. Once the focus turns to monetizing, pretty soon people start getting creative (think multiple page articles to increase page views) and both the quality and user-experience suffers. But hey...maybe you can do it right!

[David Edenden]

War with Iran can be easily won by an air campaign aimed at the nuclear facilities and roads and bridges. No boots on the ground!

http://the-macedonian-tendency.blogs...g-my-mind.html

"Iran is the hardest nut to crack. It would be too costly, in terms of manpower and money, for the US to attempt to get rid of the Iranian mullahs by itself. Instead, using Yugoslavia as a model, the US will bomb Iran, giving cover to local separatist groups such as the Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis and you guessed it the Arabs bordering on southern Shia dominated Iraq (where all the Iranian oil is). When Washington makes it known to all concerned that it will break Iran into pieces, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iraqi Kurdistan, and you guessed it the Shia in Iraq will join the US and all descend on Iran to get their part of the spoils. Similar to the German invasion of Yugoslavia during WW2."

Iran, can't rebuild its nuclear facilities because it will be broken into 5 - 6 pieces.

No need to thank me now ... thank me later.

[Diane1976]

[QUOTE=David Edenden;233144]

Re your plan to start a war against Iran modelled on the German invasion of Yugoslavia, I think you could probably get a job supplying ideas to Gingrich.

[David Edenden]

[QUOTE=Diane1976;233158]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

Re your plan to start a war against Iran modelled on the German invasion of Yugoslavia, I think you could probably get a job supplying ideas to Gingrich.

This comment comes close to violating Bloggingheads policy regarding the posting of vile comments! See My "Salade Macedoine" Politics

[Diane1976]

[QUOTE=David Edenden;233160]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

This comment comes close to violating Bloggingheads policy regarding the posting of vile comments! See My "Salade Macedoine" Politics

So does this!!

"I am even open to the idea of Canada joining the US, with Quebec having the status of "Puerto Rico of the North", while the other nine provinces join as individual states. (While we are at it, let's throw in the Caribbean, Australia and New Zealand)."

Actually, with our new neo-con/libertarian/religious right, militaristic, Bush wannabe Prime Minister, and all the money we're going to get from our oil, we Canadians might start taking over some countries. We are now the best friend of Israel in the world, and they will probably help us do regime changes. Australia seems like a natural place to put our prisoners.

[David Edenden]

[QUOTE=Diane1976;233168]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

So does this!!

"I am even open to the idea of Canada joining the US, with Quebec having the status of "Puerto Rico of the North", while the other nine provinces join as individual states. (While we are at it, let's throw in the Caribbean, Australia and New Zealand)."

Actually, with our new neo-con/libertarian/religious right, militaristic, Bush wannabe Prime Minister, and all the money we're going to get from our oil, we Canadians might start taking over some countries. We are now the best friend of Israel in the world, and they will probably help us do regime changes. Australia seems like a natural place to put our prisoners.

Actually ... my secret plan is to join with Australia and New Zealand ... take over the US and force heath care down their throats!

[badhatharry]

[QUOTE=David Edenden;233173]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

Actually ... my secret plan is to join with Australia and New Zealand ... take over the US and force heath care down their throats!

Yeah, because in the US there is no health care.

[chamblee54]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

... When Washington makes it known to all concerned that it will break Iran into pieces, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iraqi Kurdistan, and you guessed it the Shia in Iraq will join the US and all descend on Iran to get their part of the spoils.

We will be greeted as liberators.
chamblee54

[David Edenden]

Originally Posted by chamblee54

We will be greeted as liberators.
chamblee54

The point is ... no troops on the ground ... no one to greet!

[chamblee54]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

The point is ... no troops on the ground ... no one to greet!

Sarcasm is our wmd.
chamblee54

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

War with Iran can be easily won by an air campaign aimed at the nuclear facilities and roads and bridges. No boots on the ground!

http://the-macedonian-tendency.blogs...g-my-mind.html

"Iran is the hardest nut to crack. It would be too costly, in terms of manpower and money, for the US to attempt to get rid of the Iranian mullahs by itself. Instead, using Yugoslavia as a model, the US will bomb Iran, giving cover to local separatist groups such as the Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis and you guessed it the Arabs bordering on southern Shia dominated Iraq (where all the Iranian oil is). When Washington makes it known to all concerned that it will break Iran into pieces, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iraqi Kurdistan, and you guessed it the Shia in Iraq will join the US and all descend on Iran to get their part of the spoils. Similar to the German invasion of Yugoslavia during WW2."

Iran, can't rebuild its nuclear facilities because it will be broken into 5 - 6 pieces.

No need to thank me now ... thank me later.

Can you explain why this idea was not implemented for Iraq? Or even Afghanistan? For Afghanistan (I am assuming by now everyone is familiar with Iraq's ethnic divisions) you could let Pashtuns in south join Pakistan, the north consists of Uzbeks, Tajiks and Turkmen who will all join their respective country. That leaves US in charge of the small Hazara Shia minority in the middle which would be very happy with US b/c they were oppressed in the past. So why did not US do this? Anyway several other points:

1. I don't think Pakistanis will rush to add more Baluchis to their population. The Baluch population in Pakistan is in constant conflict with the central government.

2. The Azeri population in Iran is very big and dispersed over a very large area. Moreover unlike the other ethnic groups you mentioned Azeris are predominantly Shia and so they have done pretty well under the current regime. The supreme leader himself is Azeri, as is Mousavi one of the two green movement leaders and former PM under Khomeini. A lot of the big names in the Islamic Republic have been or are Azeris.

3. Yugoslavia was invaded by a coalition of German, Italian, Bulgarian and Hungarian ground forces.

4. Iran's current area and population are about 6 times that of Yugoslavia right before the second world war.

[David Edenden]

Parallax said: Can you explain why this idea was not implemented for Iraq? Or even Afghanistan?

I think that the Neo-Cons believed in their own arrogant propaganda that the US is the most powerful and EXCEPTIONAL country in the history of MANKIND ... favored by GOD!

All they had to do was install Chalibi and Karzai (using Chile and Greece as a model) and everything would be OK. When Al-Maliki refused, at one time, to take Bush's phone call or when Al-Maliki laughed in the faced of a Congressman who asked Iraq to pay the US SOMETHING for their liberation from Saddam Hussien, the New-Cons had no way to process that information ... so they have remained confused, incoherent, disoriented and ... silent.

For Afghanistan (I am assuming by now everyone is familiar with Iraq's ethnic divisions) you could let Pashtuns in south join Pakistan, the north consists of Uzbeks, Tajiks and Turkmen who will all join their respective country. That leaves US in charge of the small Hazara Shia minority in the middle which would be very happy with US b/c they were oppressed in the past. So why did not US do this?

This is like Kryptonite for the US. I would let them be independent or join Iran since Iran is already a multi-ethnic country.... their choice. Let Iran negotiate passage to and from the Hazara lands using East Berlin as a model.


Anyway several other points:

1. I don't think Pakistanis will rush to add more Baluchis to their population. The Baluch population in Pakistan is in constant conflict with the central government.

Pakistan, with the inclusion of ALL Baluchis and ALL Pashtuns in one state will be larger (bigger is always better), more stable, more powerful vis-a-vis India and by necessity be more decentralized and more democratic. No one can lord it over anyone else

2. The Azeri population in Iran is very big and dispersed over a very large area. Moreover unlike the other ethnic groups you mentioned Azeris are predominantly Shia and so they have done pretty well under the current regime. The supreme leader himself is Azeri, as is Mousavi one of the two green movement leaders and former PM under Khomeini. A lot of the big names in the Islamic Republic have been or are Azeris.

The Azeris could remain with the Persian rump (unlikely) join their Sunni cousins in Azerbaijan (unlikely) or form an independent Shia Azerbaijan (at the expense of the Persians (most likely) similar to the current independence of Montenegro vis-a-vis Serbia. I can pass a pinch of salt to you if you wish because ... you know ... I do have "male answer syndrome..

3. Yugoslavia was invaded by a coalition of German, Italian, Bulgarian and Hungarian ground forces.

Only because they wanted occupy Serbia (by German) annex Kosovo (by Italy), annex Macedonia (by Bulgaria). If Germany wanted to just destroy Yugoslavia and smash Serbia with no troops on the ground and air campaign would have worked. Independence for Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, union of Kosovo and Albania would have worked. Bosnia, like today would have been a problem.

4. Iran's current area and population are about 6 times that of Yugoslavia right before the second world war.

The US has way bigger and more accurate bombs!

[policy wank]

If money is becoming more of an issue in providing the same level of content on the site then you should at least try to raise some money from viewers. I would gladly donate money, but I won't unless it's part of a campaign that I can see is making a difference for BloggingHeads (the classic collective action problem). Why not set a dollar figure goal and keep a running tally at the top of the site? Make a personal appeal in a diavlog or monovlog. It seems like something that should at least be tried before certain types of content on the site becomes less frequent, though I do of course look forward to more of Bob on the site.

I see that there is a donate button conveniently placed entirely out of view at the bottom of the page.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by policy wank

Make a personal appeal in a diavlog or monovlog. It seems like something that should at least be tried before certain types of content on the site becomes less frequent, though I do of course look forward to more of Bob on the site.

Did you say personal appeal?

[stephanie]

I haven't listened yet, but I hope the comments about fundraising and claim that this is "sad" aren't simply a reaction to a second Bob/Mickey diavlog. They've broken up their discussions before, and they hadn't diavlogged together in ages before these.

[ohcomeon]

I tried to tell you, Bob. Make an ask. Number one reason people give for not donating to a good cause - "I have never been asked." I know this is true because I would make a gift to support you if I had known the site was in trouble. I realize fund raising seems like an insecure way to make money for people who have the "investor" paradigm. But hiring a full time fund raiser with real goals can bring steady income. I am not lobbying for the job. I have a great job. But you should listen to my free advice.

[graz]

Mickey would be better informed as a journalist if he spent time with Dowd instead of Coulter:

Tell it Mo.

ETA: Think about the children.

Character building beyond bootstraps.

Aloha?

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by graz

Mickey would be better informed as a journalist if he spent time with Dowd instead of Coulter:

Tell it Mo.

and miss those cold embraces from america's favorite bigoted mostly female conservative automaton. You have no idea the ecstasy putting your hand on that barely beating heart Actually Mickey thinks Obama is "the other" and said so in a diavlog with Frum. It's going to be great fun watching Mickey tie himself in knots explaining why Romney is not flip flopping or is flip flopping the Right Way.

[graz]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

and miss those cold embraces from america's favorite bigoted mostly female conservative automaton. You have no idea the ecstasy putting your hand on that barely beating heart Actually Mickey thinks Obama is "the other" and said so in a diavlog with Frum. It's going to be great fun watching Mickey tie himself in knots explaining why Romney is not flip flopping or is flip flopping the Right Way.

But ... But ... Mickey's a democrat ... dontcha know? So why should he have to concern himself with those pesky Republicans? Oh yeah, he's a journolist ... I mean a Daily Caller ... you know, non-partisan. A political artisan who's work is ridiculed by savvy interneticians from all spectrums. It can't be easy.

[sapeye]

Jesus, they're back already! Clearly we waxed far too poetic in singing their praises and mourning the pending potential demise of life as we know it in BH Nation. I haven't yet watched this episode, but I fear an absence of snark. Perhaps, Bob, you could tape an auxiliary side convo with Mickey and get one of your tech-savvy employees to splice some slyly scurrilous soundbites into pauses that beg for them.

[dublins1bastard]

Originally Posted by sapeye

Jesus, they're back already! Clearly we waxed far too poetic in singing their praises and mourning the pending potential demise of life as we know it in BH Nation. I haven't yet watched this episode, but I fear an absence of snark. Perhaps, Bob, you could tape an auxiliary side convo with Mickey and get one of your tech-savvy employees to splice some slyly scurrilous soundbites into pauses that beg for them.

SNARK is very over-rated. Take it to "Balloon Juice", you'll be the 2nd Cumming of "Jesus Christ", what a.......

[Parallax]

1. For the umpteenth time Bob makes the "Iranians are sane enough to have the bomb" argument. This is not as clear as Bob thinks and people who question this are not war mongering mili-cons. Given Iran's behavior (what was sane about attacking the UK embassy??) the burden is on Bob to show that they are in fact sane.

2. "They are insane" is not the only argument against an Iranian bomb. There are better arguments that I enumerated in a comment for the Bob - Hurlburt diavlog and it is unfortunate and frustrating that nobody has challenged Bob with those.

3. It is sad that the Iraq war now basically colors Bob's every foreign policy position. It looks like Bob has first picked the policy he prefers (US and/or Israel should not invade Iran no matter what) and then he looks for ways of justifying it. It is like deciding the direction first and then looking for good things to say about the destination, it is utterly perverse. I think we should have a discussion about the ends first.

4. While it is obvious that Israel/US blew up nuclear scientists (there were plausible alternate explanations) and that are now waging a covert war against Iran it is very doubtful that Iran wanted to blow up the Saudi embassy in US. Something that is going to court, just to give you a contrast Iran declined that there was an explosion in Isfahan! I get the impression that Bob is either so emotionally involved that he is not really objective or that he does this on purpose with the justification that preventing the war is worth it. If it is the latter then my advice would be that the sacrifices will get bigger and bigger and at some point you will look back at this path with remorse.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Parallax

1. For the umpteenth time Bob makes the "Iranians are sane enough to have the bomb" argument. This is not as clear as Bob thinks and people who question this are not war mongering mili-cons. Given Iran's behavior (what was sane about attacking the UK embassy??) the burden is on Bob to show that they are in fact sane.

Actually if the Iranians carpet bombed Tehran just to attack the embassy or pumped tons of chemical weapons killing untold thousands of their own people, that would suffice to prove their insanity.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Actually if the Iranians carpet bombed Tehran just to attack the embassy or pumped tons of chemical weapons killing untold thousands of their own people, that would suffice to prove their insanity.

I suppose that would convince everyone but then they don't really treat the city of Tehran and Israel the same way, do they?

People compare Iran to Soviet union and I am pretty sure Soviet union did not do something as insane as attacking and occupying a foreign embassy. This does not mean that Iran is insane will go for a suicide nuclear attack as soon as it can carry out one but it also means that their sanity is not obvious or self evident.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Parallax

I suppose that would convince everyone but then they don't really treat the city of Tehran and Israel the same way, do they?

Sure but my point was that they don't seem to have fratricidal tendencies in this attack that you point to as an example of their possible crazy behavior. Similarly I don't believe they will have those same tendencies with the bomb as well.

People compare Iran to Soviet union and I am pretty sure Soviet union did not do something as insane as attacking and occupying a foreign embassy. This does not mean that Iran is insane will go for a suicide nuclear attack as soon as it can carry out one but it also means that their sanity is not obvious or self evident.

Forget the USSR what about North Korea. Are they somehow less crazy than the present Iranian regime ? I would say they are crazier.

The bottom line we have 3 things that we can do if negotiations fail. Two of them are unprecedented one not so.

Unprecedented: we attack and fail, this IMHO is the worst thing that could happen or attack and knock out the facilities, with blowback and unknowns that are sure to be unpleasant as well.

Allowing a country like Iran to get the bomb without a major war is something that has happened before. The more pro-attack among us have to prove something, not the less-attack

[Parallax]

Again this is one of those things that Bob repeats so many times I am afraid it will become conventional wisdom soon.

Ahmadinejad was undermined by the Larijani brothers who very much despise Ahmadinejad. The 5 Larijani brothers are all now in various position of power ranging from the speaker of parliament (Ali) to the head of Tehran University's medical school (Bagher). Then like now the Greens had no say in Iran's foreign policy.

[chiwhisoxx]

listening to this DV makes me very pessimistic for the future of bloggingheads. going to bet it's gonna end up being 90% bob doing DV's wringing his hands about how crazy people are about iran while espousing his own crank views. oh, and he'll probably be paired with someone who will only provide minimal pushback. hooray!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

listening to this DV makes me very pessimistic for the future of bloggingheads. going to bet it's gonna end up being 90% bob doing DV's wringing his hands about how crazy people are about iran while espousing his own crank views. oh, and he'll probably be paired with someone who will only provide minimal pushback. hooray!

maybe he'll get paired with someone whose dad is a janitor. oh the shame of it!

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

... bob doing DV's wringing his hands about how crazy people are about iran while espousing his own crank views. oh, and he'll probably be paired with someone who will only provide minimal pushback.

That's a bit unfair, chiwhi. Bob has shown again and again that he is willing to debate those with whom he has deep disagreements, and often allows them ample time to lay out their views without rude interruptions. The Bob Kagan interview comes immediately to mind.

I don't really want to see this devolve into the 24/7-Bob show. Still, he's an excellent interviewer, and I have nothing but high expectations for his work.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

That's a bit unfair, chiwhi. Bob has shown again and again that he is willing to debate those with whom he has deep disagreements, and often allows them ample time to lay out their views without rude interruptions. The Bob Kagan interview comes immediately to mind.

I don't really want to see this devolve into the 24/7-Bob show. Still, he's an excellent interviewer, and I have nothing but high expectations for his work.

I agree with that. When he's assuming a role as an interviewer he's been really careful to allow the other person to explain his/her arguments.

When he is on a one to one with somebody else, he still gives room for counterarguments but he may hold a stronger opinion of his own.

I think he's done a good job in both roles.

PS: I can only think of the time when he was arguing with Dennett as the only instance when he was trying too hard to push his points. And we forgive him for that.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

That's a bit unfair, chiwhi. Bob has shown again and again that he is willing to debate those with whom he has deep disagreements, and often allows them ample time to lay out their views without rude interruptions. The Bob Kagan interview comes immediately to mind.

I don't really want to see this devolve into the 24/7-Bob show. Still, he's an excellent interviewer, and I have nothing but high expectations for his work.

Exactly, Bob diavlogged with David Frum when he was a Republican.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Exactly, Bob diavlogged with David Frum when he was a Republican.

I didn't know Bob was once a Republican.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I didn't know Bob was once a Republican.

Ya got me grammar nazi (or if you were apple grammar muslim ) When Frum was one of you not Bob.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Ya got me grammar nazi (or if you were apple grammar muslim ) When Frum was one of you not Bob.

Wrong again!!! I'm not a Republican. But I must confess that I need to register as one so that I can vote in the primary. But I am not a Republican.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Wrong again!!! I'm not a Republican. But I must confess that I need to register as one so that I can vote in the primary. But I am not a Republican.

At least you are not a DemocRAT. Alrighty then you and Frum are an independents who votes republican is that ok

[Cincinnatus]

I guess if there's going to be an adjustment to bloggingheads content, I can handle more Bob and Mickey, and less Michelle Goldberg, Tim Fernholz, Amanda Marcotte, et. al.

[Markos]

Regarding Sandusky, etc. - One thing I always think about when these horrible child abuse cases happen is: Who would ever ask to be sexually attracted to children? And, in the case of at least some of the people who have this sickness and act as predators, apparently they themselves were previously victims of the same crime. And we have infinite sympathy (as we should) for the child victims, but, if no one is able to help those children and if they eventually become predators, we have no place in society or this world whatsoever for the predators. Except prison or to let them kill themselves. It does seem to be the most unforgivable, unredeemable crime. And maybe that's just how it has to be. But I do, as I say, ask myself: Who would ask to have the problem of being sexually attracted to children? Why do they have it? Did they ask for it? It does seem to me that probably the only really viable path for such people is suicide. I don't want to say we should have sympathy for the predators. But when having been a victim can cause some people to become a predator... that this problem is disturbing on deeper levels than is normally addressed.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Markos

Regarding Sandusky, etc. - One thing I always think about when these horrible child abuse cases happen is: Who would ever ask to be sexually attracted to children? And, in the case of at least some of the people who have this sickness and act as predators, apparently they themselves were previously victims of the same crime. And we have infinite sympathy (as we should) for the child victims, but, if no one is able to help those children and if they eventually become predators, we have no place in society or this world whatsoever for the predators. Except prison or to let them kill themselves. It does seem to be the most unforgivable, unredeemable crime. And maybe that's just how it has to be. But I do, as I say, ask myself: Who would ask to have the problem of being sexually attracted to children? Why do they have it? Did they ask for it? It does seem to me that probably the only really viable path for such people is suicide. I don't want to say we should have sympathy for the predators. But when having been a victim can cause some people to become a predator... that this problem is disturbing on deeper levels than is normally addressed.

All of this is true, but it seems to me that it is also irrelevant. And for me, this applies to all violent crime. The woman who is a victim of a rape/homicide doesn't have anything to do with any abuse her attacker may have suffered as a child. Her life is the one snuffed out; his life involved a chance to reevaluate and change behavior. If everyone who was molested, or abused, or neglected, turned to crime the world would collapse under the weight of underclass violence.

Execution is the surest form of treatment, and consistent with a rational approach to achieving civic tranquility.