Quoting ohcomeon: That's 11 in a row.

I'd wager on 12.
Just because the odds are good.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want women for womens sake. I mean I am a lefty and will take Mr. Farrell over Ann Althouse any day. Hell, I'll certainly take thoughtful conservatives over her, too. But doesn't Bob know any smart, articulate women willing to appear as a favor to him once in a while?

I will go on the record for the tenth time as requesting Samantha Power. I would settle for a guy who could articulate and defend her views, which I believe will be a major influence on the Obama presidency. Henry Farrell should get diversity points for the beautiful brogue. I could listen to him all day joos readin the fooooun book. Unfortunately, his accent is getting Americanized.

I call BS. In the span from June 25-July 2 there were 14 diavlogs, 8 of which had women participating. If you cut the Bob-Mickey diavlogs--which, unless one of them has a major lifestyle announcement to make, will of necessity be female-free--from that group, two thirds had a woman. Considering that probably way less than half of bloggers are women, those are pretty good numbers.

OHC, It would be funny if tomorrow you got your wish and we had Ann Coulter and Mickey Kaus...wait, that wouldn't be funny at all actually. How about we really shoot for the stars...Sandra Day O' Conner on all the recent SCOTUS rulings and the politics of the court in general. Another one i'd love to see is Elizabeth De La Vega, former federal prosecutor who wrote the one of the first impeach Bush books.

And the quality level (Brooks, Shire, Hurlburt etc.) is usually pretty damn impressive. Let's freak Mickey out and bring in a Mexican!

Let's freak Mickey out and bring in a Mexican!

Sí, se puede, but only if we adequately secure BloggingHead borders first.

Bob,
If you are coming to Netroots Nation next week I will be there as a volunteer. I will be happy to arrange introductions to a wide variety of smart women, bloggers and otherwise. As for you jyminee, Wonderment points out that only 13 of the last 98 participants have been women. We are 51% of the population you know.

To Posner's question about Gutenberg and polarization: The printing press was perhaps the most important tool of the Protestant Reformation, enabling mass readership of the Bible. The Reformation arguably was the most polarizing event in Western civilization. About the Internet's leftward orientation: Farrell's mention of cost is key here. The netroots organized and networked on very low budgets; blogging is essentially free. The comparable right-wing network of talk radio, think tanks and magazines is lavishly financed by wealthy patrons and corporate interests. 'Net-based fund-raising is much cheaper to run than its right-wing counterpart, direct-mail. The biggest difference I've noticed in the two wings of the blogosphere is that most left-leaning blogs are open to comments. Rightist blogs are less likely to be open to reader reaction. Compare, for example, The Plank (The New Republic) with The Corner (National Review).

These forums have a section for general comments. If a comment is not relevant to a specific diavlog, could you please post it there?

Excellent discussion between two of BHTV's best. Thanks for the extra 15 minutes, too. I could easily listen to these guys talk for hours.

18 comments. Almost a year. Takes some chutzpa to complain about what others who choose to participate in the ebb and flow, some much to my chagrin, deride the direction they amuse themselves with.

allbetsareoff: Shoutout to you for three good observations: why the printing press was divisive, rightwing grassroots movement as centrally financed, and rightwing blogs less likely to permit comments. On that last, it's not just the big ones like The Corner. Most of the rightwing blogs that I've ever read either permit no comments at all, or have some onerous registration/pre-approval mechanism. They should realize that they'd have a better chance of spreading their message past the choir if they opened things up a little bit. Might also help them to get other righties to start participating in the blogosphere.

MF: I think ohc's comment was on-topic enough, in the temporal sense, at least.

Regarding the differences between the leftosphere and rightosphere, here's an interesting post from Matt Yglesias. Excerpt:

When you shift from low-information liberals to high information liberals, the proportion of liberals getting the inequality facts right goes up. But when you shift from low-information conservatives to high information conservatives, you see evidence not of growing awareness of the facts but of growing familiarity with conservative talking points and thus a decreasing proclivity to answer the question correctly. And I seriously doubt things would turn out any differently if you found a question where the shoe was on the other foot.

Echo chamber, anybody?

Flea - I am too good of a movement progressive to fall for that. No one pays any attention to people in "free speech zones."

pisc - I know you will hate this but sometimes I just love you.

I understand your point, but I disagree with the implicit suggestion that bloggingheads should better reflect social demographics. If there should bemore proportionate respresentation of women, shouldn't there also be a more proportionate representation of blacks, Hispanics (have there been any?), etc. Heck, since bloggingheads is a global venture, shouldn't we then complain that so few diavloggers are East or South Asian, despite the fact that these two groups make up 50% of the world's population? (Temporary solution: more Ramesh and Reihan!) And why haven't we had on any diavloggers who are severely handicapped? (Please, no jokes about a particular diavlogger.) Also, if we're bothered that a disproportionate amount of diavloggers are male, should we also be bothered that an even more disproportionate amount are Jewish?

I generally think the more diversity the better. I happen to be a white female American so a lack of people with that life experience and point of view jumps out at me first. But I would love to see more people of color, varied religious and non religious beliefs and life experiences different from my own. I am not asking for quotas - I am asking for variety in something other than political affliation. The way I see it having mostly white males in the Jewish and Christian traditions may result in different opinions but the questions are always framed in the same way.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: I understand your point, but I disagree with the implicit suggestion that bloggingheads should better reflect social demographics. If there should bemore proportionate representation of women, shouldn't there also be a more proportionate representation of blacks, Hispanics (have there been any?), etc. Heck, since bloggingheads is a global venture, shouldn't we then complain that so few diavloggers are East or South Asian, despite the fact that these two groups make up 50% of the world's population? (Temporary solution: more Ramesh and Reihan!) And why haven't we had on any diavloggers who are severely handicapped? (Please, no jokes about a particular diavlogger.)

Also, if we're bothered that a disproportionate amount of diavloggers are male, should we also be bothered that an even more disproportionate amount are Jewish?

I get the feeling BHTV takes whoever they can get. (That sounds snarky, but I don't mean it that way at all.) I certainly don't think there is any effort to stack the deck in favor of men. My guess is that the demographics are simply a function of who will agree to appear. I suppose a case could be made that BHTV should try harder to get minorities or women, but then we don't really know

In the discussion of the morality of actions Mr. Posner largely shrugs off those of governments, noting that they have always acted so. He further differentiated moral acceptability of actions, saying that individuals are (and presumably should be) held to higher standards than governments. As a self-described utilitarian one would expect him to hold that the reason we form governments in the first place is to enable certain things that are better done collectively, rather than idividually. Building roads would be a classic example, as would be the formation of a legal system that reflects consensus as much as possible. An inevitable consequence of the establishment of governments is that the collective power that they wield is far greater than that of the individual. Power that can be and is used for ill as readily as for good. In the case of actions for ill, governments also offer an extremely convenient diffusion of responsibility, to the degree that the negative consequences are easily dismissed as Mr. Posner does as being "the way governments have always acted", or as being acceptable under either a "greater good" argument or

Quoting bjkeefe: Regarding the differences between the leftosphere and rightosphere, here's an interesting post from Matt Yglesias.

Excerpt:

Echo chamber, anybody?

This reminds me of the study that found the more Fox News you watch, the less well-informed you are about what is actually going on in the world. The Republican message machine is really a reality denial machine, a vast infrastructure set up to insulate conservatives from the real world. They have created their very own alternate reality. Between AM radio, Fox News (and cable news generally), and the conservative print and online media, conservatives can live out their lives without ever being exposure to information that hasn't been ideologically sanitized.

Quoting bjkeefe: Most of the rightwing blogs that I've ever read either permit no comments at all, or have some onerous registration/pre-approval mechanism.

Right. And they also close accounts and delete comments that do not sufficiently adhere to right wing dogma. If you create an account at Little Green Footballs or Free Republic and try to post from a non-ideological conservative viewpoint, your comments will be deleted (usually within minutes), and your account closed. Again, it's part of the reality denial mechanism that allows them to live in a ideologically pure and fact-free alternate universe.

You've never been to Brian Leiter's site, have you? From experience, in cases where a blog is strongly left-wing or right-wing, there's always at a commenter from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum who posts regularly. These posters are almost invariably attention-whores, trollish, and a discredit to their side of the argument. If the Corner had an open comments section, it would get ugly really quick.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: You've never been to Brian Leiter's site, have you?

From experience, in cases where a blog is strongly left-wing or right-wing, there's always at a commenter from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum who posts regularly. These posters are almost invariably attention-whores, trollish, and a discredit to their side of the argument. If the Corner had an open comments section, it would get ugly really quick.

Well, that's truly a problem with comments sections in general. Some kind of moderation may help with it. If the intellectual dissident is polite and stays on topic, it's hard to condemn, however. A blog I've recently started reading is Rick Perlstein's. And on practically every post, a conservative "Christopher Nunnley" appears in the comments with at least one well-thought out rebuttal. I usually disagree, but I cannot dispute that he's putting forth substantive arguments that advance the discussion. Like Brendan said, it's all about what you want: A forum to explore ideas, or an echo chamber. And I take the point made by two people above: The right prefers the echo chamber. Part of the whole reason the right is infuriated by the "MSM" is not because it's liberal (it isn't), but because it does not rigidly

Also, comment boards in general are awful echo chambers, where 99% of people think the exact same thing and characterize anyone with a different opinion as a racist/misogynist/fascist/socialist/terrorist symp./etc. I remember being young and naive once, and trying post on Kevin Drum's blog. I learned my lesson -- it didn't matter how respectful and fact-based my post was, the fact that I disputed something made me a wingnut. The bloggingheads forum is the glaring exception to the rule.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: Also, comment boards in general are awful echo chambers, where 99% of people think the exact same thing and characterize anyone with a different opinion as a racist/misogynist/fascist/socialist/terrorist symp./etc. I remember being young and naive once, and trying post on Kevin Drum's blog. I learned my lesson -- it didn't matter how respectful and fact-based my post was, the fact that I disputed something made me a wingnut.

Good point. That's sad about what happened when you posted at Kevin Drum's blog. I've had the same experience at Ann Althouse's blog. If you leave a single comment departing from the established story line, you're immediately attacked in the most personal terms. The really interesting question (to me, at least) is why politics is such an emotional topic.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: The bloggingheads forum is the glaring exception to the rule.

For sure. I pray it stays this way. 5 or 10 new users with an attitude could throw the whole thing out of whack very quickly. Thoughtful people are the first ones to be driven away by bombast and insults. The people who post here, I must say, do an excellent job of handling troublemakers.

We can't have that. I'll try to be a little more aggravating in future so as to nip this in the bud.

I don't see how Posner has missed what seems to be a fundamental moral truth that hasn't changed in centuries. It is worse to torture than it is to kill. I doubt you'd find any culture on earth that believes killing is a greater sin than torturing. Killing can be humane. Killing needs to be done sometimes. Killing has its place, and those of us that aren't pacifists at least partially accept this. But I'd say that a simple majority of human beings today believe that torture is wrong under any and every circumstance. From least bad to most bad, I believe the order is: Imprisonment --> Execution --> Torture

I love Henry Farrell. Wouldn't mind watching him every day. What's up with Posner saying "conservativ - ism" repeatedly?

Fair enough point, but is "my post count is higher than yours" really the best way to frame your disagreement?

Quoting DoctorMoney: I don't see how Posner has missed what seems to be a fundamental moral truth that hasn't changed in centuries. It is worse to torture than it is to kill. I doubt you'd find any culture on earth that believes killing is a greater sin than torturing.

I'm not so sure about that. Sleep deprivation can be a form of torture. But I would rather be forced to stay awake for seven days than be summarily executed. Whether or not torture is worse than killing depends on the severity and duration of the torture.

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: You've never been to Brian Leiter's site, have you?

From experience, in cases where a blog is strongly left-wing or right-wing, there's always at a commenter from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum who posts regularly. These posters are almost invariably attention-whores, trollish, and a discredit to their side of the argument. If the Corner had an open comments section, it would get ugly really quick.

No, I haven't been to Brian's blog, except maybe by following an occasional link. Thanks for the recommendation; I'll try to keep it in mind. (Side note: For others, here's his URL. Interesting coincidence in light of a recent diavlog: Title of the post that is the top result returned by Googling "brian leitner's blog:" Your Handy Guide to Right-Wing Lawyers Who Hate Brian Leiter...or the Company that Eugene Volokh Keeps. Serendipitous misspelling!) To your second point, I agree that there are instances of this behavior, and I suspect you're right about The Corner, specifically, given its prominence. I also agree with your later point about being swamped on some blogs if you post contra the prevailing mindset. Still, though, discussion has to start somewhere, and I do think that at least some blogs are willing to treat a

The really interesting question (to me, at least) is why politics is such an emotional topic.

Now THAT would be a great topic for a full hour diavlog! Come on Bob, make it happen!

Quoting Exeus99: Fair enough point, but is "my post count is higher than yours" really the best way to frame your disagreement?

I made to claims one way or the other as to whether or not I agreed with or disagreed with the content of the comment. I really don't have a problem with those that mostly read the comments section, I did so myself for quite some time, and only used the comment count to highlight the absurdity, that I see, of complaining about someone that does participate, on a deeper level, not conforming to the particular reading preferences of the reader.

Quoting DoctorMoney: I don't see how Posner has missed what seems to be a fundamental moral truth that hasn't changed in centuries. It is worse to torture than it is to kill. I doubt you'd find any culture on earth that believes killing is a greater sin than torturing.

Killing can be humane. Killing needs to be done sometimes. Killing has its place, and those of us that aren't pacifists at least partially accept this. But I'd say that a simple majority of human beings today believe that torture is wrong under any and every circumstance.

From least bad to most bad, I believe the order is:

Imprisonment --> Execution --> Torture

I don't think this is an absolute. It depends on how you define torture. Many people call it torture when the US keeps people sleep deprived and cold for a week. I'd rather be sleep deprived and cold for a week than executed.

Quoting gwlaw99: I don't think this is an absolute. It depends on how you define torture. Many people call it torture when the US keeps people sleep deprived and cold for a week. I'd rather be sleep deprived and cold for a week than executed.

Yes, and according to the Gonzales memo, which was used almost as precedent, if they who deprive the detainee of heat and sleep lack the "requisite" intent, then the victim hasn't been "tortured" in any way.
This provides great solace to prisoners, detainees and their families, and it's a tremendous load off my mind that Americans haven't done a complete 180 of ethical standards post 9/11.
I know, I know, this crap has been going on for years, but the Bushie bent towards doing the kinds of things that were done covertly in the past right out in the open so as to avoid any legal ramifications, flies in the face of the illusion of decency that most Americans still have, and, as a result simply will not fly, IMHO. For long anyway.. I think anyway.. I used to think for the most part... Any and all statements contained in this post are the intellectual property of the poster

Quoting piscivorous: complain about what others who choose to participate in the ebb and flow

....Mr. Beale!

Quoting TwinSwords: This reminds me of the study that found the more Fox News you watch, the less well-informed you are about what is actually going on in the world. The Republican message machine is really a reality denial machine, a vast infrastructure set up to insulate conservatives from the real world. They have created their very own alternate reality. Between AM radio, Fox News (and cable news generally), and the conservative print and online media, conservatives can live out their lives without ever being exposure to information that hasn't been ideologically sanitized.

To me, it is that agenda trumps truth for them, and in many cases becomes a replacement for it. Too, this practice has evolved into the fine art of arguing parallel points in order to further the agenda while disguising the underlying intent.
For example, the abortion issue becomes not about making sure women are encouraged to assume the traditional role of staying home and take care of the spawn, but about the killing of the unborn. Then it's presented in such a way as to demonize those who oppose government interference in such personal matters, going as

In the discussion of torture, we reach a point where Eric confesses that he is a Utilitarian (or does he say "Consequentialist?), and that he bases his defense of torture on consequentialist grounds, and both diavloggers back away from the philosophical brink. "We're not going to settle THAT debate," they say. I wouldn't want them to get side-tracked into a discussion of deontology vs. consequentialism, but Henry almost seems to accept Eric's assumption that a utilitarian would have to approve of torture in a wider range of cases than the non-utilitarian. But this ignores the fact that Utilitarians (and consequentialists more generally) must admit (and have long admitted) that taking a utilitarian perspective (making one's moral judgments directly on the basis of the utilitarian standard) might lead to worse consequences than taking a non-utilitarian perspective, and if doing so leads to worse consequences, the utilitarian must recommend that we NOT use the utilitarian standard directly. From the utilitarian point of view, what matters is not that everybody TRY to maximize good consequences, but rather that good consequences actually be maximized. It could well turn out that when people TRY to maximize good outcomes

Shameless!

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I wouldn't want them to get side-tracked into a discussion of deontology vs. consequentialism ...

I think even a good utilitarian might well want to stick with the experience embodied in our tradition of near-absolute prohibitions on torture -- even when we're talking about government officials rather than ordinary citizens.

Yes, that was also my reaction to the off-hand comment about utilitarianism. I think this was just a casual use of "utilitarian," however. In ordinary speech it's shorthand for "the ends justify the means." By this kind of logic you could also have "utilitarian" approach to terrorism. Bin Laden as "utilitarian." He just has a different theory of "good" outcomes: blow up a few thousand Americans now for the sake of a glorious future. Virtually all political torturers and murderers think they have a utilitarian philosophy (perhaps not articulated as such). They believe their actions are justified by anticipated "good" outcomes.

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, that was also my reaction to the off-hand comment about utilitarianism.

I think this was just a casual use of "utilitarian," however. In ordinary speech it's shorthand for "the ends justify the means."

I don't think the remarks about utilitarianism were "off-hand" or being used "casually" in this conversation.
I'll admit that a response of mine in the past to garbagecowboy probably didn't take into account that he wasn't using "utilitarian considerations" as a kind of MORAL consideration at all, but rather almost as short-hand for self-interested, pracitical considerations. But I think our diavloggers here are quite clear that they mean what moral philosophers mean by "utilitarianism". I think Eric says "I AM a utilitarian" -- not something that one says in the common use of the term "utilitarian", where it is used as an adjective. Both seem aware of the philosophical notion and nothing they say is at all inconsistent with the philosophical definition (though as I say, they are a bit hasty in concluding that a utilitarian necessarily has such an easy time justifying torture).

What came to my mind as an obvious explanation for the difference between conservative and liberal participation in talk radio vs. blogs, which Henry Farrell did not address, is how people relate to the two different modes of communication. Blogs are more participatory whereas with talk radio you're being talked to from on high, as it were, by an authority. It's a more heirarchical model, which seems like it would be more appealing to conservatives in general. As for David Brooks, I've also been following his "dark night of the soul" of the last months, and I see him caught between the reputation he's staked out as a conservative, and a realization that Republicanism is ideologically bankrupt, or, if you prefer, spent. He can't come out and say it so instead he's talking wistfully about old-fashioned Burkean conservatism and where he thinks the party should go now.

Quoting gwlaw99: I don't think this is an absolute. It depends on how you define torture. Many people call it torture when the US keeps people sleep deprived and cold for a week. I'd rather be sleep deprived and cold for a week than executed.

Yes, but if it's torture then you won't know it's for a week. That's the point. Punch a guy in the face once and it hurts, but is clearly preferable to death. Punch a guy in the face once every half hour for a week and he is going to wish for the sweet, sweet release of death. I'm not saying we can't occasionally punch detainees -- obviously, that's going to happen. We can make them stand up, too. But doing it for long periods of time with the specific intent to cause psychological trauma is always torture, and torture is always worse than murder. I can put down my dog, but I am not allowed to torture him. Most people prefer imprisonment to death, and most people prefer death to torture. I don't see how this is anything but absolute, and I wonder a little at willful obfuscation of this most basic point.

Quoting DoctorMoney: ...
Most people prefer imprisonment to death, and most people prefer death to torture. I don't see how this is anything but absolute, and I wonder a little at willful obfuscation of this most basic point.

The history of one of the candidates for President puts this bit of non-reasoning to bed. It was not extremely hard to provoke the N. Vietnamese into killing their prisoners of war. The torture that Senator McCain and his fellow guest at the Hanoi Hilton, had to endure, shows that not many would prefer death over torture as it seems reasonable to me they cold have had it with the proper enticement.

Didn't McCain say that he reached a point where he wished for death? I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember that from some profile of him that came out not too long ago.

JimN: Your point about being talked to from on high makes sense. As with all such ideas, it's doubtless a bit of a over-generalization, but I do think there is something real there. Also agree with you about the fascination of watching Brooks over time. He also shows this when he's doing his talking heads gigs. From listening to him on NPR and NewsHour, I'd say that he used to be determinedly on-message always, and would never concede even the most basic of points, but lately, he's willing to show nuance and stray from orthodoxy. Okay, so there's an over-generalization by me.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Didn't McCain say that he reached a point where he wished for death? I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember that from some profile of him that came out not too long ago.

I have a very hard time believing that the North Vietnamese gave Mr. McCain the option of a humane suicide at any point. Kinda undermines the whole point of torture. But, you know, maybe I'm just non-reasoning again. Naive me.

Have you never known anybody that wished to be dead? It is one think to wish for death and another to take the actions that would bring it about.

If one is determined to die there are numerous was to achieve it even if not offered the choice of "humane suicide."

Quoting piscivorous: If one is determined to die there are numerous was to achieve it even if not offered the choice of "humane suicide."

You know, in the torture 101 manual, the very first page of the book says: DO NOT ALLOW YOUR TORTUREE TO COMMIT SUICIDE

CIA torture manuals. Pre-Rummie editions. Sooooo 90s.

That book only applies to us fascist in the west. The Vietnamese weren't quite that liberal.

The fact that many people undergoing torture have BEGGED to be put to death rather than continue to endure torture would suggest that (at least to some), it is worse than death. The fact that torturers must deny their victims the opportunity to commit suicide because they know that many of them would rather die than continue to endure th torture also makes a strong claim that torture is worse than death. And finally, the fact that torture is more strongly condemned (almost universally) by humanity while the death penalty is subject to constant debate also suggests that torture is worse than death. It's hard to say that either is really worse than the other since they are both awful (death from the "finality" POV and torture from the "cruelty" POV), but because people have a built-in survival instinct that makes them want to continue to live hardly seems to be an argument that torture is a more attractive option. If McCain wished he was dead and then changed his mind, would it be fair to call him a flip-flopper?

Quoting bjkeefe: As with all such ideas, it's doubtless a bit of a over-generalization I agree!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: The fact that many people undergoing torture have BEGGED to be put to death rather than continue to endure torture would suggest that (at least to some), it is worse than death. The fact that torturers must deny their victims the opportunity to commit suicide because they know that many of them would rather die than continue to endure th torture also makes a strong claim that torture is worse than death. And finally, the fact that torture is more strongly condemned (almost universally) by humanity while the death penalty is subject to constant debate also suggests that torture is worse than death. It's hard to say that either is really worse than the other since they are both awful (death from the "finality" POV and torture from the "cruelty" POV), but because people have a built-in survival instinct that makes them want to continue to live hardly seems to be an argument that torture is a more attractive option.

If McCain wished he was dead and then changed his mind, would it be fair to call him a flip-flopper?

Yes it is one

Quoting DoctorMoney: I don't see how Posner has missed what seems to be a fundamental moral truth that hasn't changed in centuries. It is worse to torture than it is to kill. I doubt you'd find any culture on earth that believes killing is a greater sin than torturing.

....

Imprisonment --> Execution --> Torture

This is and understandable, but nonetheless erroneous claim. Although the degree of personal moral corruption involved in killing someone may be either less extreme or more extreme in killing than in torture (and visa-versa), and the basis for making such a judgment is based upon assessment of the relative level of depravity of intentionality involved, few traditional cultures or religious moral systems place torture above killing on their "objective" scale of moral or legal error. This is true as well for non-western religious systems (such as Buddhist). But this whole discussion seems to sidestep a more interesting fact: research has shown 65% of us, given the power and conducive circumstances and the assurance that someone else will take responsibility, will engage in torture right up to and including infliction of death in the course of torture. This is