Quoting Michael Renhard: I find Mathew Lee almost too annoying to stand. He starts three sentences for every one he finishes. It is just impossible to follow. The thing that makes it so annoying is that he has interesting things to say but one can never follow the development of an argument. Is it possible that part of the reason that UN officials are always avoiding him in the hallways is that they don't trust themselves not to slap him just to elicit a pause in his babbling?

Matthew Lee is awesome. He's one of the brightest of BHTV's numerous bright spots. After watching him a few times, you'll feel like he's one of your best pals. I agree he has a lot of interesting things to say.

I agree with TS, that Matthew Lee is one of bhTV's best. I think your criticisms point to the limitations of Goldberg as an interlocutor. When Goldberg stops to question Lee, or if Goldberg glides over an argument, as when lee argued about Sunni interests in Lebanon, it's clear Lee has interesting opinions. More Lee, with different 'heads. He deserves to be paired with the foreign policy heavyweights - Lee and Kagan, or Drezner! Goldberg is best at interviewing.

Re: UN resolution to decriminalize homosexuality. The difference between the US and other liberal democracies on this issue (such as France and the UK) is interesting from a legal point of view, although I think that, from a moral point of view, it reflects an utterly unacceptable divorce between law and morality. I quote Mark Goldberg: "The United States couched its opposition in legal technicalities. "We are opposed to any discrimination, legally or politically," said Alejandro D. Wolff, the deputy U.S. ambassador. "But the nature of our federal system prevents us from undertaking commitments and engagements where federal authorities don't have jurisdiction." Are we really to believe that the reason for the American government's opposition to the resolution comes down to the federal structure of the United States? After all, the Supreme Court has ruled, or so I seem to remember, that states cannot criminalize certain sexual practices simply because they are unpopular with the majority... If anyone could enlighten me on this question, I would be grateful.

Quoting Francoamerican: Are we really to believe that the reason for the American government's opposition to the resolution comes down to the federal structure of the United States? After all, the Supreme Court has ruled, or so I seem to remember, that states cannot criminalize certain sexual practices simply because they are unpopular with the majority...

Excellent point. Obviously, the legalisms are a fig leaf. This would be a good place for Obama to do a 180 with respect to the Bush Administration.

to the ¤valoffice of the bheaders: for {not just} the sake of biodiversity: let this lee-creature host his own gigs here&there {since he is clearly the more brainy/witty of this duo}. cheers, gas

Quoting Francoamerican: Re: UN resolution to decriminalize homosexuality. The difference between the US and other liberal democracies on this issue (such as France and the UK) is interesting from a legal point of view, although I think that, from a moral point of view, it reflects an utterly unacceptable divorce between law and morality. I quote Mark Goldberg:

"The United States couched its opposition in legal technicalities. "We are opposed to any discrimination, legally or politically," said Alejandro D. Wolff, the deputy U.S. ambassador. "But the nature of our federal system prevents us from undertaking commitments and engagements where federal authorities don't have jurisdiction."

Are we really to believe that the reason for the American government's opposition to the resolution comes down to the federal structure of the United States? After all, the Supreme Court has ruled, or so I seem to remember, that states cannot criminalize certain sexual practices simply because they are unpopular with the majority...

If anyone could enlighten me on this question, I would be grateful.

I'm not qualified to offer legal analysis, obviously, but I will say that the right has been using the federalism canard for many decades to prolong the life of their barbaric legal theories and

Quoting bjkeefe: This would be a good place for Obama to do a 180 with respect to the Bush Administration.

I hope you are right. But Obama may end up being the Great Conciliator, and concilitate no one. If Lincoln is his model he would do well to remember that on the issue of federalism and "states' rights," Lincoln was hardly a namby-pamby.

Quoting TwinSwords: I'm not qualified to offer legal analysis, obviously, but I will say that the right has been using the federalism canard for many decades to prolong the life of their barbaric legal theories and practices. The seminal cases seem to have revolved around civil rights: when the federal government guaranteed certain rights (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964), the response from the right was that this was trampling on "states' rights," aka "federalism."

For a good discussion that covers this question in some depth, see Jonah Goldberg debate with Ann Althouse. The part of the diavlog relevant to this issue occurs through the first 21 minutes.

I suspect you already know everything I've stated above, so I'm sorry I can't offer you a better analysis.

Thanks for the link. American federalism is a legal nightmare for someone, like me, who finds the French (or continental and ultimately Roman) law tradition more rational. The fact that civil rights could only be asserted by appealing to the right of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce strikes me as, well as you say, barbaric. That was the reasoning behind the civil rights act, wasn't it?