I wish to volunteer you to pick up discarded needles and condoms in the dilapidated housing development in BHO's old district that benefited Rezko. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...icy/?page=full

Kaus kiss up in 3,2,1: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/126...7&out=00:41:07 "..in that book of his," how offhand!

Glad these two are vlogging again, I miss "What's Your Problem?"

I was surprised at the degree to which Mr. Beinart played to (liberal) type almost to the point of caricature in this Diavlog, he's usually a little more independent. As one example I was struck by his basing his support for compulsory national service primarily on how much good a large government program that forced the types of interactions and work that he favored could do (roughly herehttp://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/126...51out=00:40:32) as though this was ample justification; no doubt he'd have some objections if such compulsory service or even just incentivized-service was oriented toward faith-based programs, etc., even though proponents would use the same arguements (ie caring for souls will better the nation, young people need religious guidance they're not getting now, etc).
I was additionally surprised that Mr. Goldberg did not point out how closely this argument tracked with the tendency modern liberals seem to have of turning programs or ideas they like into moral dicatates for massive programs; Mr. Goldberg has frequently observed that liberals are always on the lookout for causes that are the moral equivalent of war--see his article here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...RlZjRjMWU1OGM= --but failed to point out Mr. Bienart's position as an example of this phenomenon.

Quoting Bobby G: Not only do I look forward to this diavlog, I look forwarding to arguing with all of you about why this was, indeed, a good diavlog.

Heh. Too bad. My first reaction to this one was an urge to compliment them both. I have never heard Jonah sound so reasonable or come so close to having a discussion without indulging in bombastic asides. Peter, I thought, made a number of good points when Jonah strayed into over-generalization. Both, happily, acknowledged the chicken-and-egg problem that we now have in our country -- are liberals (conservatives) excessive in their expressed views by nature, or does this tendency come from reaction to the excessive pronouncements of conservatives (liberals)? Truly microscopic nitpick: Jonah, please. The word is "compulsory," not "compulsorary." You get it right once in a while, but you get it wrong more often. If you have occasion to say this word several dozen times in any future conversation, please keep this in mind. Zooming out a bit, I was a little annoyed that Jonah kept trying to portray a program of incentives to encourage national/community service as a program that compels young people to participate. This is not what his arch-nemesis is proposing. I think there is

Quoting Exeus99: I was surprised at the degree to which Mr. Beinart played to (liberal) type almost to the point of caricature in this Diavlog, he's usually a little more independent. As one example I was struck by his basing his support for compulsory national service primarily on how much good a large government program that forced the types of interactions and work that he favored could do (roughly herehttp://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/126...51out=00:40:32) ...

Exeus99: Your dingalink is missing an ampersand before the keyword out. Here it is, fixed: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/126...1&out=00:40:32 Administrivia aside, I heard in your clip "encouragement." While Peter might have elsewhere entertained the notion of compulsory service for the sake of discussion, I think it is more accurate to say that the mainstream liberal view that supports such programs of service prefers them to be voluntary/incentivized.

Alas, I don't think I have too much of a fight to pick with you. The diavlog was better than I thought it would be, especially their discussion of patriotism, which I thought portrayed the differences in the conservative and liberal views extremely clearly, accurately, and plausibly; they both seemed (to me) reasonable. That said, about the community programs: (1) I don't think as many teenagers as you think find religion unattractive. I think a lot of the smart ones do, because of the smarmy, brainless way religion is often practiced in this country, but most teenagers aren't smart. That's a nitpick, of course. (2) I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of national community service. In fact, I'm rather attracted to a draft, or Gary Hart's idea of a national militia that trains citizens about guns and military strategy, so that we can have a citizenry that is more informed about military policy and so more willing to disagree with the military's assessment of things. See Minuteman: Restoring an Army of the People. At the same time, I thought Jonah's arguments against the draft--especially the concern that we're forcing people to be in a position to have to kill others--especially powerful. (3) I think Jonah thinks there are

I wasn't at all looking forward to yet another discussion of patriotism but actually Mr. Beinart did an especially good job on that issue in this diavlog. Brendan, I basically agree with you to a certain point on the national service, but in a tangential way I agree with some of the concerns of Mr. Goldberg, although it must be acknowledged that Mr. Goldberg focused his concerns around a largely-strawmanish notion of compulsory service. There are certain incentives know for people to engage in various good deeds in their community and I certainly don't see the objection to increasing those incentives as I think that well, good deeds are good. Obviously, Brendan where we may differ a little is that I don't share your distaste (which you then read into 'many young people') for religious or faith based organizations. I think there are certainly examples of things faith based orgs do that I don't like (actually many examples) but I think largely finding a good org doing work that one is comfortable with is not that difficult and to the extent it is, it is not that difficult to start your own. As a person

In theory, I like this argument but I probably shouldn't be in favor of something I wouldn't agree to participate in. Then again, I actually sometimes wish there had been a draft when I was a young person so that I could have resisted it. I mean that completely sincerely. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Quoting Bobby G:
(2) I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of national community service. In fact, I'm rather attracted to a draft, or Gary Hart's idea of a national militia that trains citizens about guns and military strategy, so that we can have a citizenry that is more informed about military policy and so more willing to disagree with the military's assessment of things. See Minuteman: Restoring an Army of the People. At the same time, I thought Jonah's arguments against the draft--especially the concern that we're forcing people to be in a position to have to kill others--especially powerful.

Quoting Bobby G: ... (2) I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of national community service. In fact, I'm rather attracted to a draft, or Gary Hart's idea of a national militia that trains citizens about guns and military strategy, so that we can have a citizenry that is more informed about military policy and so more willing to disagree with the military's assessment of things. See Minuteman: Restoring an Army of the People. At the same time, I thought Jonah's arguments against the draft--especially the concern that we're forcing people to be in a position to have to kill others--especially powerful.

I always like Milton Friedman's response to the draft when he was a member of President Nixon's President's Commission on an All-Volunteer Force to General William Westmoreland

Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries.

Mr. Friedman interrupted, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?"

Mr. Westmoreland replied, "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves."

Mr. Friedman then retorted, "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we

piscivorous, I am not opposed to you on this issue, but Friedman's quote doesn't sit well with me. The term mercenary only has a negative connotation because of a belief among some, that certain things, like killing and dying, should be done for a cause or for one's nation and not done for money like being a butcher or a lawyer. Certainly most actual mercenaries who did not share this belief and saw being a soldier like any other job had no reason to have a problem with the term mercenary. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Your understanding of the word is quite limited if yo think it is only commonly use in reference to military personal or actions.

mer·ce·nar·y [mur-suh-ner-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -nar·ies.
–adjective
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
–noun
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4. any hireling.

Bobby G:

... about the community programs:

(1) I don't think as many teenagers as you think find religion unattractive. I think a lot of the smart ones do, because of the smarmy, brainless way religion is often practiced in this country, but most teenagers aren't smart. That's a nitpick, of course.

I should have made more clear that I wasn't trying to say that it was religion itself that many find unattractive. It's more the organized church aspect to it, especially as it manifests in community service programs. I know lots of people who go to church who can't stand the community programs run by religious organizations; for example, because of the heavy-handedness of the evangelism that's part of relating to those being served, or for another, because they'd rather be doing different things than what the church groups are interested in doing.

(2) ... draft ...

Not up to discussing this right now.

(3) I think Jonah thinks there are enough people who do community service, such that a national community service program isn't needed. He claimed, without providing statistics, that more Americans volunteer than others do in other countries. Moreover, he might say simply, "look, it should be up to people themselves what things they

pisc, I don't understand...these definitions back up the point I was trying to make. Mercenary means doing it for the money....so your butcher is a mercenary that's not a problem. Being a mercenary soldier has a negative connotation because people think fighting wars is different than other jobs. So what in the world was Friedman's point? I really have no argument with you as I stated at the beginning probably I'm just missing something.

In theory, I like this argument but I probably shouldn't be in favor of something I wouldn't agree to participate in. Then again, I actually sometimes wish there had been a draft when I was a young person so that I could have resisted it. I mean that completely sincerely.

That's a nice romantic dream, Abu, but I'd have to wonder if most kids have the presence of mind at age 17 to act so nobly and rationally. In practice, the draft was not a challenge to morality but an obligatory government order to murder or be murdered that most young men were ill-equipped to comprehend and process ethically. Young men lived in dread of getting draft notices and many reacted irrationally, impulsively or robotically. Some were pressured to go by "patriotic" peers and elders; others went because of fear of being "sissies" or cowards; others mutilated themselves, committed felonies, took drugs, etc. in order to fail entrance exams; others went underground here or into foreign exile; others went to prison either on principles or because they could see no other alternative. In short, it was a system of slavery, although the enslavement was temporary, if you survived. We all know the story of the

Abu Noor:

Obviously, Brendan where we may differ a little is that I don't share your distaste (which you then read into 'many young people') for religious or faith based organizations. I think there are certainly examples of things faith based orgs do that I don't like (actually many examples) but I think largely finding a good org doing work that one is comfortable with is not that difficult and to the extent it is, it is not that difficult to start your own.

Bobby G has the same criticism, and you're both fair to say it. I responded to him before I read your post. For convenience, here are my same words, repeated.

Quoting bjkeefe: I should have made more clear that I wasn't trying to say that it was religion itself that many find unattractive. It's more the organized church aspect to it, especially as it manifests in community service programs. I know lots of people who go to church who can't stand the community programs run by religious organizations; for example, because of the heavy-handedness of the evangelism that's part of relating to those being served, or for another, because they'd rather be doing different things than what the

I guess his point was that being a soldier is a job. You and many others might not see it that way but that is what it is. I guess you would have had t been through it to get it.

Thanks for sharing that Wonderment. The statement I made I meant sincerely for myself but was not meant to be an endorsement of the draft generally. Of course, my preference (which I'm sure you share) would be if the country didn't feel it needed to be an empire that fought wars and spent 711 billion dollars a year on "defense." Then we would neither the draft nor the current recruitment system and would have an amazing amount of money to address all the other needs that we have. (And while some of the horrors you mentioned are lessened by not having the draft, I'm sure you would agree that many are still present in the current recruitment system). By the way, my presence of mind at 17 is probably questionable. While I certainly had my radical streak by then (I refused to stand for the national anthem at high school basketball games -- how's that for patriotism?!) I had not yet accepted Islam. I, however, have no doubt that I would not have entered any draft mostly because my mother (May God have mercy on her) made it clear often to both myself and

Quoting piscivorous: I guess his point was that being a soldier is a job. You and many others might not see it that way but that is what it is. I guess you would have had t been through it to get it.

Pisc, you're conflating denotation with connotation.

I just want to point out that in the last 10 episodes there have been 0 female participants. And, with the exception of Mr. Loury, they have all been remarkably pale. But don't worry, I am certain this reflects the demographics of the viewers - or at least explains them.

...While some of the horrors you mentioned are lessened by not having the draft, I'm sure you would agree that many are still present in the current recruitment system.

Yes, I am very involved in going to high school campuses, school boards and recruitment centers to demand truth in recruitment, protect children's privacy from Pentagon abuse, and eliminate child soldier programs like JROTC. We are in the planning stages of our 4th protest at a local recruitment center (positioned on the mall next to children's hangouts Petco and a skateboard store).

By the way, my presence of mind at 17 is probably questionable. While I certainly had my radical streak by then (I refused to stand for the national anthem at high school basketball games -- how's that for patriotism?!)

Wonderful! I did the same thing at a speech given by antiwar candidate Gene McCarthy in early spring of 1968. I stayed seated through "the bombs bursting in air", but was so intimidated by the disapproving glares of my own friends and the rest of the audience that I caved in and stood. McCarthy was great, by the way, and he had a point about

13/96 females since June 9, 08 (list of recent BHeads) = 13.5% Not good.

Quoting Wonderment: 13/96 females since June 9, 08 (list of recent BHeads) = 13.5%

Not good.

Is anyone clear on how the pairings and scheduling are set?

I don't mean to be this way about this, because I'm sure some will take me to be a whiny liberal. That's fine. But there are a zillion reasons why a guy like Jonah doesn't belong on bloggingheads.tv. His type of rhetoric is *well* represented in the MSM, and I can't see how he brings anything to the table. He has been so inflammatory and so ridiculous in his column, so snide and rude and trollish -- that it simply makes this site look bad to have him. Maybe this is the minority view. I didn't even listen to the vlog, so it's not an issue of anything he said here. But I am disappointed. Bob, really? Jonah Goldberg? Is Rosie O'Donnell on next? I had hoped that this would be a site that would include intelligent and fair minded conservatives, because many of us on the other side of the aisle may not even know where to find them. Kaus is a great example, as is Loury -- the Cato folks, etc. So, count me as one vote against. If there's an imaginary line in the sand that BH.tv shouldn't cross, this would be it.

Update: 13/98 = 13.265%

A couple of things: A lot of people here (not I) find Kaus to be far worse than Goldberg. As for me, I don't count him as a conservative. Second, Loury is most certainly not a conservative; he hasn't been since 1995. He is at the left end of the spectrum nowadays. As for intelligent conservatives, if you want to find them, they're pretty easy to find. If you need names, let me know, though I'd be interested in whether you're interested in "reasonable" conservatives as opposed to "intelligent" ones.

Quoting Bobby G: ... I'd be interested in whether you're interested in "reasonable" conservatives as opposed to "intelligent" ones.

I'm curious how you define that distinction.

Quoting Wonderment: Update: 13/98 = 13.265%

Yeah, but if you count over a longer history, this temporary blip evens out. Mostly because Ann Althouse and Megan McArdle combine to account for half of all diavlogger-appearances. ;^)

We should have a week straight of Kerry Howley and Rosa Brooks to balance things out. I know there is at least one African American woman on the planet, because we had her talk about Obama that one time. I'll bet there's a Latina with a computer somewhere too. Wonderment
Self-deputized Marshall, Political Correctness Squad

Quoting Dr Money: I don't mean to be this way about this, because I'm sure some will take me to be a whiny liberal..................

Aside from the ridiculous notion that you wish to bar someone from speaking here.....whom you didn't even listen to, I think you're missing the point of BhTV (at least IMO). It's that people of vastly differing political views can calmly and respectfully discuss topics without having it turn into a non-productive shouting match or (and what I see on the 'msm' all too often) a case of talking over someone to dull their effectiveness as try to complete a point (see just about any 'debate' on This Week). It's interesting that you cite Mickey as 'intelligent and fair-minded' (I have no idea how you came up with 'conservative', though) when another voice of censorship on these boards has been trying to get him banned. It's also interesting that the only people I've seen here trying to stifle free speech on these boards represent 'liberal' viewpoints. There are a few participants of these blogcasts whom I strongly disagree with, but I've never once even considered asking that they not be allowed

Well, I take "reasonable" to be more subjective than "intelligent"; thus, "reasonable from whose point of view?" seems to me a better question than "intelligent from whose point of view?" So, David Brooks will strike more liberals as reasonable than Thomas Sowell, because he's less predictable, is more open to government intervention--in a word, he's more liberal--whereas Thomas Sowell, although more intelligent, doesn't really give any ground to any liberal points-of-view, so he'll strike them as less reasonable.

Quoting Bobby G: Well, I take "reasonable" to be more subjective than "intelligent"; thus, "reasonable from whose point of view?" seems to me a better question than "intelligent from whose point of view?" So, David Brooks will strike more liberals as reasonable than Thomas Sowell, because he's less predictable, is more open to government intervention--in a word, he's more liberal--whereas Thomas Sowell, although more intelligent, doesn't really give any ground to any liberal points-of-view, so he'll strike them as less reasonable.

I, personally, don't take reasonable to mean "more likely to agree with me," but with more "more likely to have a considered opinion." In the examples you gave I say Brooks tries too hard to seem reasonable, but appealing to a broad segment at the same time, and usually sounds anodyne and conventional. I'm intrigued by your view of Sowell, whom I know only from a few NRO pieces he's written has always struck me as a guy trying to make the world fit his point of view rather than the reverse; and that strikes me as neither intellligent nor reasonable. I'll take your word for it, though and look through what he has to offer. As counterexamples I'd offer John Derbyshire, and

I used Brooks because he's so often trotted out as an example of a reasonable conservative. I do know, though, that he has his detractors, who claim that he's a crypto-extremist. I don't see it, myself, but I think it's a defensible POV (it's sort of how I feel about Obama). Interesting divergence in your use of the term reasonable. There's certainly a lot of, perhaps more, justification for your view. I get mine from reading contemporary epistemology, where most philosophers have nowadays given up on trying to present deductive arguments, starting from universally shared premises, for controversial claims. They tend instead to say things like "well, I want to show only that my opinion is reasonable" or perhaps even "rational", which requires a still smaller evidentiary threshold. And they always point out that "reasonable" is indexed to a certain audience; that is, because there are almost no premises that are universally shared (even such basic ones as "something exists", which is denied by at least one Buddhist philosopher I know), the best we can hope for is to try to appear reasonable to a fairly large audience. Yes, Hanson--and let's add Krauthammer, Robert Sheer, and Katha Politt, for fun--is a good example of someone who is intelligent but

As a liberal, it somewhat sickens me to say that I always find listening to Jonah stimulating. Stimulating, in that he irritates me in [i]just[i] the right way to get my heart going. He somehow always manages to stake out positions that are the bratty counter-intuitive mirrored version of my way of thinking. I can't help but guess that he found his "style" at a young age, arguing with liberal relatives around a dinner table. Always striving to distinguish himself through an annoying contrarianism, hell-bent on getting a rouse out of some poor uncle.

harkin:

It's also interesting that the only people I've seen here trying to stifle free speech on these boards represent 'liberal' viewpoints.

Especially in light of the recent unpleasantness in Louisiana, I have to say that this little trope that you on the right love to trot out is getting mighty stale. This has become the first bottle of whine opened every time one of you gets heat for saying something stupid or beyond the pale. The calls for various diavloggers to be banned that come from liberal commenters (whether I agree with them in each case or not) are 95% complaints about intellectual vacuousness and 5% complaints about racist remarks or rude behavior. It's not a desire to suppress a point of view; it's a demand for something above the cable TV level of gasbagging.

Quoting BlueberrySky: I can't help but guess that he found his "style" at a young age, arguing with liberal relatives around a dinner table.

Presumably, those weren't from his mother's side.

Yeah, I would add that most of the "Bob, don't have this guy/gal back" comments have been largely in the spirit of keeping the highest standards for BHTV. Going back to Ann Coulter discussions, it's not that she should be censored from speaking ANYWHERE, we just don't want her here. I think BHTV has been pretty good at allowing some pretty strident conservatives grace the screen: Jonah, David Frum etc. And as far as the comment sections go, the last time I checked even David Thomson's lunatic hate speech is allowed (with fair game for us to respond.)

BJKeefe wrote:

The calls for various diavloggers to be banned that come from liberal commenters (whether I agree with them in each case or not) are 95% complaints about intellectual vacuousness and 5% complaints about racist remarks or rude behavior.

Um, that is a little self serving. I had a post all composed in response but then I browsed through the rest of the comments again and thought what's the point?. Mickey really is right about the comments here, twelve or so Left Wing commenter's pretty much run the entire board. After each diavlog they reach a concensus on the intellectual vacuity and/or moral deficiency of the Right Wing diavloger in question.

Quoting wssjunku: BJKeefe wrote:

Um, that is a little self serving. I had a post all composed in response but then I browsed through the rest of the comments again and thought what's the point?. Mickey really is right about the comments here, twelve or so Left Wing commenter's pretty much run the entire board. After each diavlog they reach a concensus on the intellectual vacuity and/or moral deficiency of the Right Wing diavloger in question.

Really? I'd like you prove that assertion. Firstly, if you pick the top twelve or so posters, there's a pretty wide continuum pretty obviously represented extending pretty far to the right though maybe farther left. I've been witness to plenty of squabbles among those posters, so even just picking the ones on the left, there's not that much consensus. Also I've seen lots of praise for Eli Lake, David Frum, Mickey, Bob Barr, Conn Carroll, Rod Dreher, Frank Fukuyama, Glen Loury, Heather MacDonald, Megan McArdle, Ramesh Ponnuru, Reihan Salam, Eugene Volokh, Byron York, and Jim Pinkerton, among others, from that same set of posters. I'd hazard a guess that you only pay attention to events that fit your pre-existing biases.

wssjunku:

Um, that is a little self serving. I had a post all composed in response but then I browsed through the rest of the comments again and thought what's the point?. Mickey really is right about the comments here, twelve or so Left Wing commenter's pretty much run the entire board. After each diavlog they reach a concensus on the intellectual vacuity and/or moral deficiency of the Right Wing diavloger in question.

Better self-serving than self-pitying, I say. I'm sorry if I and others put you off with our loquaciousness. I want to suggest a few things to you, however, in hopes of encouraging you to speak for yourself, rather than being yet another example of someone who can't think of anything else to do besides parroting Mickey's poorly-founded assertion. Start by changing the way the forum is displayed to to the threaded view. This should show you two things. First, a lot of the comment counts are built up by people having back-and-forth discussions. Sorry if you, or Mickey, think comments should be one-offs. Some of the rest of us take pleasure in conversing and debating. Second, the clear separation afforded by the obvious staircase appearance

Quoting AemJeff: Also I've seen lots of praise for Eli Lake, David Frum, Mickey, Bob Barr, Conn Carroll, Rod Dreher, Frank Fukuyama, Glen Loury, Heather MacDonald, Megan McArdle, Ramesh Ponnuru, Reihan Salam, Eugene Volokh, Byron York, and Jim Pinkerton, among others, from that same set of posters.

Quoting bjkeefe: More to the point, most of the rightwing diavloggers are not, in fact, dismissed for "intellectual vacuity and/or moral deficiency." Jim Pinkerton, John McWhorter, Ramesh Ponnuru, Reihan Salam, Conn Carroll, William Beutler, Brink Lindsey, Ross Douthat, Daniel Drezner, Megan McArdle, Will Wilkinson, Julian Sanchez, Eric Posner, Eugene Volokh, and yes, even Mickey Kaus are but a few non-liberal diavloggers who receive consistent respect, support, and/or affection from lots of liberal commenters, however much they might disagree with them on certain issues.

Damn. More of that Go12 consensus.

I'll see you at the meeting...

Nitpick alert: Glenn Loury is not a right-winger. (This probably isn't a nitpick from Glenn's perspective, though.)

I know you weren't addressing me, but I have a quick technical question: how do you respond to posts so quickly? You post in a wide variety of threads and seem to promptly respond to every response you get. Is there some feature that alerts you when someone has responded to a post of yours?

...don't forget the Latte's this time. It's impossible to enjoy our eliteist french pastries without a good imported, girly, coffee drink. Gotta have some caffiene to properly bash America. WSSjunkie, by all means, if you know other intelligent Right-leaning friends who are interested in hashing out some of the more complex issues of the day, bring them over and tell them to jump in. I think you'll find that while that opinions are strongly-held, people here are largely respectful to one another (much more so than other sights.) --Uncle Eb

Yes, WSSJunkie, I would love it if you did this; I need support in dealing with all these people who are wrong all the time!

You say Mickey's assertion that 12 commenters, almost all of whom are liberal, dominate the conversation, but here's a list of the top 12 commenters (leaving out "junior members", who seem no longer to be here): 1. bjkeefe 3,086
2. piscivorous 964
3. Wonderment 861
4. TwinSwords 663
5. graz 624
6. AemJeff 459
7. Bloggin' Noggin 448
8. look 393
9. Eastwest 339
10. uncle ebeneezer 336
11. Whatfur 318
12. Baltimoron 283 Of these top twelve, only ##2 (piscivorous) and 11 (Whatfur) are right-of-center (I think!); of the remaining ten, I'm not sure any, except perhaps Bloggin' Noggin, are centrists.

The conservative views 'patriotism' as an Optimist: Goodness in of itself.
The liberal views 'patriotism' as a Pessimist: Something better if criticized.

What about GarbageCowboy and KidneyStones? They may not be here now, but they have been substantial contributors (both in post volume, and elaborateness of their arguments) in my time here. Also didn't ThusSprach change his name thus under-counting his actual totals. The best solution to right-wingers is: speak up, post more, engage. Nobody can stop you. Tell you're friends. The door is open to anyone who wants to come in.

Kidneystones and garbagecowboy are "junior members"; I'm guessing that means that they used to post here but stopped or changed handles after the forum change. They were before my time, though, so I wasn't sure of their views.

Quoting AemJeff: I'll see you at the meeting...

Don't forget -- new secret handshake.

Quoting Bobby G: I know you weren't addressing me, but I have a quick technical question: how do you respond to posts so quickly?

The truth: A network of secret lurkers, funded by George Soros, working on behalf of the Gang of 12, keeps watch. And there are actually 137 typists who share the username bjkeefe. Cover story: The "New Posts" link is the way I surf to this site. It's one of the links on a little HTML page that I built to serve as my browser's start page. If I'm in the mood to bicker, I click that link. NB: For the "New Posts" link to be use on the next visit, check the "remember me" box when logging in to the forums. (And don't log out when you leave, obviously.)

Quoting Bobby G: Kidneystones and garbagecowboy are "junior members"; I'm guessing that means that they used to post here but stopped or changed handles after the forum change. They were before my time, though, so I wasn't sure of their views.

GC was a great commenter. Mostly conservative or libertarian views. It's a shame he lost interest in this site. Go badger him to come back.

I swear the latest Mickey and Bob diavlog hadn't been posted when I made my comment! http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12642?in=00:00:02

I look forward to the day when I am mentioned as one of the cherished conservative commenters. Perhaps I should write something really good? EDIT: That's me fishing for compliments! No, seriously: if I reach 1,000 posts and haven't been mentioned by then, there will be heck to pay.

BobbyG, just keep posting and I'm sure you'll get a shout-out eventually. You're likeable enough! And (to the elders) what ever happened to Wolfgangus? To somewhat reiterate my point on commentor balance for the umpteenth time, if there's 12 liberals dominating the comments section here compared to say 3 conservatives, out of the millions of conservatives out there who hammer away all day long on sites like RedState etc., it doesn't seem an insurmountable task to get NINE to come over here and balance things out. Do 12 liberal voices (that don't always even agree with each other) really present such an overwhelming echo chamber?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: And (to the elders) what ever happened to Wolfgangus?

Stated reason for leaving: Irritation with the new (at that time) forum software. Also: hints at getting busier with other aspects of so-called "real" life, vague gripes about declining quality of commentary.

To somewhat reiterate my point on commentor balance for the umpteenth time, if there's 12 liberals dominating the comments section here compared to say 3 conservatives, out of the millions of conservatives out there who hammer away all day long on sites like RedState etc., it doesn't seem an insurmountable task to get NINE to come over here and balance things out. Do 12 liberal voices (that don't always even agree with each other) really present such an overwhelming echo chamber?

An interesting question. The most obvious answer is that they like their own echo chamber better than they do the thought of mixing it up with people who don't agree with them. Some of them might also be laboring under the misperception that "all diavlogs are between two liberals, and who wants to sit through that?" I have a vague memory of seeing BH.tv characterized this way on a couple of wingnut sites.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: BobbyG, just keep posting and I'm sure you'll get a shout-out eventually. You're likeable enough!

And (to the elders) what ever happened to Wolfgangus?

To somewhat reiterate my point on commentor balance for the umpteenth time, if there's 12 liberals dominating the comments section here compared to say 3 conservatives, out of the millions of conservatives out there who hammer away all day long on sites like RedState etc., it doesn't seem an insurmountable task to get NINE to come over here and balance things out. Do 12 liberal voices (that don't always even agree with each other) really present such an overwhelming echo chamber?

Let's have a liberal disagreement. eb: "Your'e likeable enough!" How rude! Aping Obama's comment to Hillary.
You have potentially offended three different constituencies with that humor. This idea of needing to balance out is suspect. Let the chips fall. Bob made a good point about the general tenor and level of considered participation here. Come on in, the waters warm - and not from a bunch of liberals peein' in the pool either.

I'll agree that compulsory service was a straw man for both 'vloggers, but I think my point stands regarding the likelihood that large government-backed/run programs of the type people on the left and right favor would be as popular if the goals of those programs were opposed to that "side's" ideological beliefs. In that sense I doubt Mr. Bienart would approve of programs that explicitly sought to better young people by encouraging religious beliefs or practices, and I doubt a right-leaning supporter would be for programs that inculcated pacifism or multiculturalism or some other ideal the right opposes. My point is to show that a large part of the support for such programs is the result not of a belief that they are inherently good--which is how they are discussed, as good in themselves--but because their supporters believe they can further particular political goals. If such programs are good in themselves, and if the good they do is primarily for the participants, then their boosters should support them even when those programs pursue goals not advocated by the ideology of the supporter. I doubt that this would hold for Mr. Bienart (nor for most national-service supporters).

Mr. Beinart argues here that it's very likely that Americans should have opposed a patriotism of affirmation at various times because of the nation's monstrous deeds. You can't expect Fredrick Douglas to salute the flag in 1852, agreed, and perhaps you can't expect "any person of conscience" to salute the flag in 1952...but what about in 2002? Today, gay marriage is illegal in most states, animal cruelty is state sanctioned in factory farms, corporate capitalists crush the spirit of the working man and despoil the environment, etc.--are these affronts to progressive values monstrous enough to render affirmative patriotism unthinkable to Mr. Beinart? When will it be possible? By beginning from a reasonable position (slaves had no reason to be patriotic and it's silly to think they should have been) Mr. Beinart obscures his fundamental opposition to the type of patriotic feeling he claims to support in some degree; after classifying affirmative patriotism as simply the "conservative type" of patriotism that liberals might feel to a lesser degree Mr. Beinart demonstrates his belief that any affirmative patriotism is indefensible. The fact of past American slavery and its insuperable evil in

Quoting bjkeefe: GC was a great commenter. Mostly conservative or libertarian views. It's a shame he lost interest in this site.

Go badger him to come back.

Agreed. It just goes to show the harm that getting a real job can cause.

(teary eyed whimper) "I miss that bastard." Seriously, I never got tired of his back & forths with Bloggin or Brendan and he often made very interesting points. Of course I miss KJ too but if he returns we'll have to change our embroidered jackets to read "Gang of 13."

my impression was that this diavlog was terrible, and i stopped it after about 7 minutes. something about the 2-cent summary about liberal and conservative patriotism at the beginning was completely worthy of a high schooler writing a one-hour, one-page essay. liberals do this, and conservatives do this. i thought david brooks was going to bust in and describe what kinds of cereals liberals and conservatives like. a conversation about two different modes of patriotism and their implications--that would be all right, but calling them out by the L and C words is ... idiotic, i guess. is there really a correlation between how one feels about "America" and your political viewpoint? i like alterman's definitions that a liberal believes in equality of opportunity and a conservative believes in liberty. how does that have anything to do with patriotism? or are we arbitrarily cutting everything in half and calling it L and C, whether or not the words mean anything? what was discussed later in this diavlog?: "liberals become academics and conservatives join the army"? or did they find something even more banal than that? "liberals have beards and conservatives get a #2 haircut." and a

Quoting osmium: i thought david brooks was going to bust in and describe what kinds of cereals liberals and conservatives like.

Awesome line. Good rant, overall.

Not trying to be inflammatory with the following question: Certain people keep commenting that Jonah or others shouldn't be allowed on BH.tv, but how would that actually work? Are you envisioning some sort of "your kind ain't welcome 'round here, pard" e-mail? Somehow, I just don't see that happening. I was under the impression that Bob is constantly wanting more content, not less; and I, for one, would be happy with 3 times the number of diavlogs currently posted. However, my favorite episodes (e.g. Anne-Marie Slaughter and Anatol Lieven) have been with more of the think-tank set.
Is that your worry--that more blustery content will discourage the more academic people from participating? Well, that's my first post here in the forums... hope the water is indeed warm here ;-)

Quoting Bobby G: I look forward to the day when I am mentioned as one of the cherished conservative commenters. Perhaps I should write something really good?

I gave up on the hope of receiving a shout out long ago, and now feel a bit embarrassed for hoping for acknowledgement in the first place.* After all, if two people you've never even met fail to notice you, why should it matter to you in the slightest?** What makes their recognition of you so important? It's not like a shout-out is going to lead to an invitation to hang out at Mickey's pad or a discussion of life with Bob over coffee. The hosts are not your friends, nor will they ever be. *This is not some sort of reverse-psychology plea for a shout-out, so please, gods of bloggingheads, don't defeat the purpose of this post by acknowledging it. Seriously. **I don't know the people who post on the board and still interact with them, but I think that's different. Our interactions are mostly substantive and can lead to a sharpening/refinement of one's arguments. A shout-out doesn't do that.

Quoting Chef: Not trying to be inflammatory with the following question: Certain people keep commenting that Jonah or others shouldn't be allowed on BH.tv, but how would that actually work?

Are you envisioning some sort of "your kind ain't welcome 'round here, pard" e-mail? Somehow, I just don't see that happening.

I was under the impression that Bob is constantly wanting more content, not less; and I, for one, would be happy with 3 times the number of diavlogs currently posted.

However, my favorite episodes (e.g. Anne-Marie Slaughter and Anatol Lieven) have been with more of the think-tank set.
Is that your worry--that more blustery content will discourage the more academic people from participating?

Well, that's my first post here in the forums... hope the water is indeed warm here ;-)

Welcome. I think your right. Bob probably does want more not less or restrictive content. The occasional bellyache about Jonah, or the ever present Mickey complaints are not likely to sway the program anyway. Requests for high quality are good. Calls for cencorship bad.

i swear i've heard TSE's name before on the bloggingheads. maybe i am crazy.

Quoting osmium: i swear i've heard TSE's name before on the bloggingheads. maybe i am crazy.

You're right. IIRC, Bob mentioned that my screen name was a reference to Nietzsche when he discussed a post someone had listing the conservatives on the site. But I think that's different from getting a shout-out for something you've posted.

In some sense, too, I think that the participants will do their own policing, based on their mutual affection for one another. So. Lots more Corn / Pinkerton diavlogs ahead. Corn / York? not so much... It seems that if Peter found Jonah so distasteful, he would simply find another partner. Then again, I'm well right-of-center, so my liking for Peter might be a criticism in itself. Perhaps a lot of the annoyance with Jonah stems from Peter's soft contact approach.

Quoting harkin: Aside from the ridiculous notion that you wish to bar someone from speaking here.....whom you didn't even listen to, I think you're missing the point of BhTV (at least IMO). It's that people of vastly differing political views can calmly and respectfully discuss topics without having it turn into a non-productive shouting match or (and what I see on the 'msm' all too often) a case of talking over someone to dull their effectiveness as try to complete a point (see just about any 'debate' on This Week).

It's interesting that you cite Mickey as 'intelligent and fair-minded' (I have no idea how you came up with 'conservative', though) when another voice of censorship on these boards has been trying to get him banned.

It's also interesting that the only people I've seen here trying to stifle free speech on these boards represent 'liberal' viewpoints. There are a few participants of these blogcasts whom I strongly disagree with, but I've never once even considered asking that they not be allowed to participate. My biggest complaints are (1) that there are not enough moderate or conservative voices here and (2) with the