Bob said it without realizing it, "a day of reckoning has to come". Watching the reckoning here in CA as tax refunds are stalled and the unions fight the governor who is trying to apply common sense. Obama's stimulus package really stimulates nothing more than democratic constituents, the time-honored practice of buying votes. Glad to hear Mickey was able to enjoy himself in Washington as democrats also continued their time-honored practice of flouting the rules they demand of everyone else. What was it, 600 private jets? Classic.

Bob, while I applaud your effort to maintain (or restore) a more civilized tone to the comments section, I don't quite understand your emphasis on the evil of sarcasm. Sarcasm is a big part of BHTV as with anything else in our culture. Ironically, you use sarcasm probably better than anyone. While everything can be overdone to a detrimental level, I haven't noticed a particular increase in sarcastic comments on this forum. There have always been sarcastic comments. Many times they are funny. Often times not. While I agree that we commentors should try to be somewhat respectful of the diavloggers (after all, they are the ones that we love to watch) I think you are overstating the threat of a little derisive humor and snark. Just to use an example close to me, when someone like David Frum makes statements about the irresponsibility of sending the wrong message to the Muslim world, the most obvious (and my opinion, most relevant) response would be to make a quick sarcastic reference to the "axis of evil" phrase (which just MAY have had some adverse effects on American interests). To me, this sort of thing is infinitely preferable to commentors making

1) Neocon has morphed into a shorthand for someone who has an interventionist foreign policy, was on the right and supported the Iraq war. But I think the old meaning of Neocon is someone who thinks cultural modernity is bad and that the masses have to be reintroduced to religion to save society. I would rather have a war supporter writing for the Times than that kind of Neocon, if I had to pick. (I have been thinking about this since C. Hitchens sort of called himself a Neocon on BhTV, and I was like LOL Whut? Am I incorrect?) 2) The only bad think about BhTV is that Mickey doesn't do diavlogs with other people very often anymore. 3) I would pledge real American dollars for Bloggingheads, of course.

The progressive/liberal diavloggers like Obama, the conservatives don't, and the independents are hopefull and giving him a chance. I don't see how that makes this a "Pro Obama site." Or how this, in any way reflects a transgression on Bob's part. Considering President Obama currently has a 70% approval rating I would say that this site is merely representative of reality. Bob has never seemed to try to make this site lean in any direction or another, aside from being intellectual and a place for great discussions.

Bob, regarding civility. It's a bit late. The clique here has been profane (I even made an few attempts to address it but was shouted down) and/or uncivil with anyone they disagree with for quite some time. The snide remarks, even the demands to ban certain conservative participants here, while always ridiculous, seemed to get much more support than the common sense rebuttal they deserved. Some of the more level-headed on the left have tried to quell the hate but it's been rare. And you chide (albeit gently) Mickey for not responding here, have you seen some of the hate leveled in his direction? Some of the bile directed at Kaus, Goldberg, Frum, York, Beutler etc for the simple act of disagreement has been beyond the pale for quite some time. I applaud the effort, but this should have been said long ago. And a site where the civility factor matches that of the bloggers participating, even if it still tilts heavily left, would be something worth supporting.

I'm not going to make an actual commitment. But, I would argue, that subscribers like something extra for giving money. I subscribe to publications that give me more than the average web-surfer can get with a click. I wouldn't just pledge money to PBS or bhTV for a mug and a t-shirt. especially if I have to listen to 'heads to whom I wouldn't subscribe separately without a say in the matter.

Wait, when was it decided that the surge worked? The last thing I saw was that the surge was getting way too much credit for the reduction of violence in Iraq: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0919074830.htm Has there been any serious response to this? Sure, politicians keep repeating that the surge worked, but politicians say all kinds of things. It seems like the NYT should hire someone who was against the war and who acknowledges the surge didn't work.

Maybe David Frum should have been held to the "civility" standard when he treated the guy debating Gaza with undisguised contempt. And a few others, like Ann Althouse, are simply nuts and little more than laughable. Frankly I don't think Bloggingheads is a very balanced site - it's an absurd conceit to suggest that Heather Hurlburt is as hard "left" as Frum is nutty neocon right. If someone can show me a Hurlburt crackpot "left" equivalent to Frums "Axis of Evil" rhetoric or that crazy book he wrote with the egregious war profiteer Richard Perle, I'd be very interested.

Violence started going down around the time the surge happened. Whether you think the surge contributed or that violence would have gone down more with a partition plan or retreat or whatever is largely a function of which party you identify with. Also, I'd be up for chipping in some jacksons if you're giving away chintzy merchandise with it. Culture11 just closed too, you free content companies are being real downers lately.

I would pledge -- $50 bucks a couple or three times a year. And I won't rant no mo.

It seems like the NYT should hire someone who was against the war and who acknowledges the surge didn't work.

Cue hysterical cries of "Fairness Doctrine!!"

Agreed. Notice that most of the recipients of the harshest comments (Frum, Goldbergh, Kagan) are people who make their living by spouting ridiculous/hateful comments about others. Not that that is a justification, it is an explanation. I would think that Bob would appreciate this as a simple feedback loop that society uses to reinforce it's norms. Bob, I hope you give Mickey a stern talking-to after this diavlog. He called (actual BH diavlogger) Rob Reich a "Huckster." And he also used sarcasm more than once. "BH Venture Capitalists...we hardly knew ye."

I just wanna know who Bob's talking about. I hope it's not me!

I think this is a good guideline for commenters: we have to respect the people who come on Bloggingheads, but we don't have to respect their ideas. We should remember that these are real people who volunteer their time without pay to come on and present their views. Unless someone says something extremely egregious, don't attack the person or their motivations, attack what they're saying.

Quoting buckle: Wait, when was it decided that the surge worked?

Before it started.

Quoting harkin: And you chide (albeit gently) Mickey for not responding here, have you seen some of the hate leveled in his direction? Some of the bile directed at Kaus, Goldberg, Frum, York, Beutler etc for the simple act of disagreement has been beyond the pale for quite some time.

Absolutely. As a leftish person, I really appreciate the participation of the smart right. This is the only place with video that gives you the right perspective without being fox newsy.

note to Bob: Harkin's earlier remark summed up exactly why I would not comment here on Bloggingheads.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/174...2:27&out=23:18

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: [...]

Very well said, Uncle Eb. As a fellow lover of (good) sarcasm, I second your response to Bob. I'll add that sarcasm directed at a diavlogger seems entirely within the boundaries, particularly when one considers how offensive or at least disrespectful are some of the things said by some diavloggers, how lackluster an effort some others put in, and how tiresome it is to keep hearing the same things by those in a third set. As to why we might watch people we don't like, Bob, I'd say first that I, personally, do have a skip list. I may occasionally watch someone on that list because of the other diavlogger. I continue to watch some others whom I dislike because I would like to push back against the message they're trying to spread, however meager my efforts might be. As for the inter-commenter strife, I'd just advise you to ignore it. As far as I can tell, it always dies away on its own. If you're worried what this might look like to potential new diavloggers, I suggest you point them at places where other diavloggers have themselves weighed in -- I'd say polite responses are obtained more than 95% of

So Mickey really thought China hasn't changed since Tiananmen? Come on, please only talk assertively about things you know about.

Quoting harkin: ... even the demands to ban certain conservative participants here ...

Again you make this claim, and again I challenge you to document it. Which you won't be able to do, unless you quote a joke out of context. As to the rest of your complaints, I'd say a similar thing to you that Bob said to the commenters who don't like certain diavloggers: if it bothers you so much, why do you keep reading? Seems to me you've got a clearly defined list in your mind of people who you don't approve of. Why not just add them to your ignore list?

Quoting hurt: So Mickey really thought China hasn't changed since Tiananmen? Come on, please only talk assertively about things you know about.

Kaus' suggestion to temporarily suspend commercial relations with China was basically absurd (no sarcasm here). Bob won that exchange hands down. I'm surprised that such overt "democratic fundamentalism" hasn't been thoroughly discredited by now.

Quoting TwinSwords: Before it started.

Nice.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Agreed. Notice that most of the recipients of the harshest comments (Frum, Goldbergh, Kagan) are people who make their living by spouting ridiculous/hateful comments about others.

Add Ann Althouse to that list (although, admittedly, her blog is her hobby, not the way she makes a living). Let's not forget Jerome Corsi was given a platform, too.

Quoting Jyminee: I think this is a good guideline for commenters: we have to respect the people who come on Bloggingheads, but we don't have to respect their ideas. We should remember that these are real people who volunteer their time without pay to come on and present their views. Unless someone says something extremely egregious, don't attack the person or their motivations, attack what they're saying.

That's a good guideline, but I don't think you've caught everything that's involved. Remember that a lot of people who come on as diavloggers are happy to be given the platform, whether it's to push an agenda, pimp a book, promote their own brand, stroke their own egos, or whatever. Particularly in the first case, it seems entirely legitimate to question their motivations, especially the sneaky ones who spread lies and FUD under the cover of a measured tone of voice.

Quoting kidneystones: And I'll add that I see a real effort to be more civil from our one formerly banned member who must really struggle to keep things on an even keel. Our most prolific commenter appears to be heading in the other direction, not that I think most notice or care.

Same old gutless kidneystones. Loves to snipe, too chicken to name names. Can't say your return is likely to help the level of civility. You back to spread more lies about Obama, or have you something new to be deranged about?

Ach, I just finished Bob's plea for civility and I have to apologize if my comment came off as too abrasive.

I think I'm getting the picture now ... sarcasm bad, criticism good. But just to be sure, we should compile a list of the most sarcastic posts, and rank them. It's best to get this out in the open. I am completely, utterly sincere about this. For example, I may have doomed bhtv by posting this recently.

Jesus, dod someone slip them both stupid juice? The right stays home cause of family values...the left parties because of the young people?!?! Um, hello: the left WON, and the right LOST. That's why they did or didn't party on inauguration night. Wow. (Head shaking here.)

I vowed a few months ago never to watch or read Mickey again, so I almost missed Bob's comments at the end of this diavlog. I'm glad he had such a compelling topic heading, but it probably would have been better to do a separate "Bob addresses the viewers" segment. I not sure how uncivil the Gaza discussions were. I didn't participate much. I was too horrified by Israeli brutality to deal with the issues with any detachment. As a Jew and a Hebrew speaker, I've been following Israel closely all my life. I'm very pessimistic about the situation, and I'd be amazed if things don't deteriorate further rather quickly. My hunch is that some of the incivility Bob referred to may have to do with the public's collective assessment that the region is a ticking international time bomb. Makes everyone nervous. One of the most disheartening aspects of the impasse is how polarized and ossified the discussion remains: old lame ideas reiterated with repulsive monotony. No peace, no progress, no exit. So I have little patience for the usual lineup of pundits. Having said that, I still check in on Bheads every day, and I definitely would kick in

P.S. I'd also say, harkin, that a lot of the incivility here on this board starts with a few conservative commenters who seem to like nothing finer than coming here to drop flame bait or who often seem bent on picking fights. I would say that you, Salt, piscivorous, danking, kidneystones, and DenvilleSteve are among this group. (There are others, I'm sure, who don't come to mind, or who seem to have vanished.) I do not say about any of you that you do this exclusively, but you all do it to some degree. Maybe you think you're just expressing an opinion to which no one should take offense, but that's just not how it works. What seems reasonable to you may be objectionable to others, and I'm sure you're all aware of this at least some of the time. While there may be something of worth to your complaints about the tone of the responses, you should also bear in mind what provokes it. Yes, it's reasonable up to a point to ask that people who can't think of anything to say in response except something cutting instead say nothing at all, but only up

When the call is issued, I will certainly respond. There really should be a permanently available contributions button. The NPR analogy reminds me that bh.tv needs to improve its t-shirts and mugs, and start charging more in the way of premium rates for great merchandise. It's part of the fund-raising gig. I love my "deploy the moose" t-shirt of the first vintage, I hasten to add. I have to say that both Bob and Mickey should have books to sell etc so that they can get some positive externalities for their income out of their appearances here. Bob has one on the way I know, but its time that Mickey returned to the subject of social equality in Obama's America.

Some advice fore bloggingheads: 1) Please have more econ content. It's far and away the biggest issue of the day yet on the side bar to my left there are currently zero diavlogs dedicated to this topic. I personally come to bloggingheads to see intelligent discussions on the current big topics and your missing this one by not getting smart knowledgeable economists battle it out here. 2) I miss the McWhorter Loury diavlogs and if you get them back I hope they don't restrict themselves to just topics of race.

It's hard to respond to sarcasm. It's often a conversation-stopper. And of course sometimes it's mistaken for non-sarcasm.

Quoting bjkeefe: P.S. I'd also say, harkin, that a lot of the incivility here on this board starts with a few conservative commenters who seem to like nothing finer than coming here to drop flame bait or who often seem bent on picking fights.

One man's flamebait is another's obvious truism.I've seen lots of dismissive comments made here about religion where the only responses, at least for some time, are an Amen from the atheist congregation.

bhtv is kind of like a year-round TED, and TED looks like it's doing pretty well. Are they fedexing computers and cameras and tapes around? They could save a bunch of money doing it all digital.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Agreed. Notice that most of the recipients of the harshest comments (Frum, Goldbergh, Kagan) are people who make their living by spouting ridiculous/hateful comments about others.

Most of this type of sniping generally comes from the left. When's the last time you read a post where someone pissed all over Heather Hurlburt? Dare I say the ingroup-i-ness also exists on the left, but I suppose that's a given because there aren't enough conservatives on here to band together. As a lefty, I feel like I have to defend Frum, Kagan, etc., just because nobody else does. Unfortunately, I do a piss poor job of it because I'm just not a con by heart. It also surprises me how much the lefties on here engage in selective hearing. Isn't it a liberal quality to sort of seek out the truth in things rather than be so in-groupy? I implore those of you who enjoy spewing your frothy mouthed vitriol (right or left) to watch Jonathan Haidt's lecture on the real differences between libs and cons. Maybe you'll be less pissed off all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

Quoting x9#z6: Some advice fore bloggingheads:

1) Please have more econ content. It's far and away the biggest issue of the day yet on the side bar to my left there are currently zero diavlogs dedicated to this topic. I personally come to bloggingheads to see intelligent discussions on the current big topics and your missing this one by not getting smart knowledgeable economists battle it out here.

Yeah, business is a big seller. And there are a ton of unaffiliated econobloggers out there who don't have their own corporate site to support. I'd love to see Mark Thoma, Brad DeLong, Daniel Davies, Max Sawicky, etc. Felix Salmon is a good guy too.

Quoting sugarkang: When's the last time you read a post where someone pissed all over Heather Hurlburt?

Hurlburt is absolutely terrific, that's why. Likewise, nobody complains about Drezner. It's the suckiness that appalls. Even Frum is drifting towards the reality-based community, except for that bit about the West Bank being part of Israel.

Quoting sugarkang: I implore those of you who enjoy spewing your frothy mouthed vitriol

Stop right there.

Let's have a low blow in defense of us lowly commenters: None of us are friends with Ann Coulter.

Dear Bob, Clip http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/174...9:08&out=59:30 sent to Glenn Reynolds, and voila, he linked to you. You owe me some hit stats, buddy.

Hey Bob, Have you looked into some sort of micropayments method? Being able to give $1 at a time might make the audience feel that they have more control over the process. Good diavlogs can be rewarded. Regarding civility, you are probably going to need to have a heavy editing hand if you want to achieve that goal. Do it like the NYTimes and only post comments after they've been cleared. Fewer comments are not necessarily a bad thing. Plus the quality will probably be better, since people will most likely just post once or twice in a diavlog and put more thought into what they say.

Quoting claymisher: Hurlburt is absolutely terrific, that's why. Likewise, nobody complains about Drezner. It's the suckiness that appalls.

And that's my point isn't it? I like her too, but what about the others who don't meet your standard of terrific? The lefty commenters seem like a bunch of Che Guevaras ready to pop a cap in the skulls of dissenters. People can disagree without resorting to ad hominems. Your personal distaste for Ann Coulter has nothing to do with the validity of her arguments. Gah. I hate getting stuck defending people I disagree with.

Stop right there.

Well you should have read further because I was talking to angry people on both sides.

Quoting Bobby G: It's hard to respond to sarcasm. It's often a conversation-stopper.

True. On the other hand, this may well be the intent, or at least, the challenge is along the lines of, "What you've said is so ridiculous, it doesn't dignify anything other than mockery in response. You're free to restate if you think you had a worthwhile point."

And of course sometimes it's mistaken for non-sarcasm.

Yes, print does have this problem.

Quoting travis68: Have you looked into some sort of micropayments method? Being able to give $1 at a time might make the audience feel that they have more control over the process.

I really love this site.
How about a hulu type of model? Ads between topics maybe?
Heck. I don't see why a potential revenue stream needs to be limited to one type of model. paypal donation buttons, donation pledges, banner ads, etc. WHATEVER! Just keep bloggingheads going!

Quoting Bobby G: One man's flamebait is another's obvious truism.I've seen lots of dismissive comments made here about religion where the only responses, at least for some time, are an Amen from the atheist congregation.

Yep. Part of the price of participating in the public square. Those objecting to such dismissals are free to explain why they find them offensive. Sometimes this works -- see my last marathon thread with an evangelical Christian whose name escapes me at the moment. [Added: it just came to me: rfrobison.] I thought, and others said, as well, that it turned into a pretty good conversation.

Quoting x9#z6: 1) Please have more econ content.

Absolutely. I flip between Paul Krugman's column and Cato's Daily Podcast to try and get a handle on the different viewpoints. I would love to see a Keynesian vs. Austrian.

2) I miss the McWhorter Loury diavlogs and if you get them back I hope they don't restrict themselves to just topics of race.

Yeah McWhorter is just one of my favorite diavloggers. I especially liked the episode where he destroyed Ta-Nehisi Coates in logic as well as civility.

Are we to refrain from sarcasm
even when the guests
themselves
address one another sarcastically?
(As has been known to happen,
even in the Mickey-Bob dialogues) (Please do not regard this comment as sarcastic).

Quoting sugarkang: And that's my point isn't it? I like her too, but what about the others who don't meet your standard of terrific? The lefty commenters seem like a bunch of Che Guevaras ready to pop a cap in the skulls of dissenters. People can disagree without resorting to ad hominems.

Your personal distaste for Ann Coulter has nothing to do with the validity of her arguments. Gah. I hate getting stuck defending people I disagree with.

That's probably a bad example because she operates at a lower level than I've ever seen this board sink to. It's too much to ask that we treat with respect diavloguers who don't treat anyone else that way. I'm not sure there have been any that bad (although a lot of people seemed to take the "Liberal Fascism" thing personally) but hypothetically..

I called David Frum an infant. Am I part of the problem?

Quoting sugarkang: Most of this type of sniping generally comes from the left. When's the last time you read a post where someone pissed all over Heather Hurlburt?

Claymisher already addressed this, but I'll add: Go look at some of the things said about Bill Scher, Jane Hamsher, Matt Yglesias, Rosa Brooks, Emily Bazelon, Joshua Cohen, and Dahlia Lithwick, just to name a few, not to mention Bob Wright.

Dare I say the ingroup-i-ness also exists on the left ...

Don't know why you'd think you'd have to dare. Just about all people form in-groups.

As a lefty [...]

It also surprises me how much the lefties on here engage in selective hearing. Isn't it a liberal quality to sort of seek out the truth in things rather than be so in-groupy?

Spoken like a true rightwinger.

I implore those of you who enjoy spewing your frothy mouthed vitriol (right or left) to watch Jonathan Haidt's lecture on the real differences between libs and cons. Maybe you'll be less pissed off all the time.

Watching Haidt in and of itself makes me pissed off. He's got some worthwhile thoughts, but overall his observations strike me as either banal or

Quoting sugarkang: The lefty commenters seem like a bunch of Che Guevaras ready to pop a cap in the skulls of dissenters. People can disagree without resorting to ad hominems.

Unless you're prepared to say the same thing about the righty commenters, I can't even begin to respect this. In any case, I think you're making too sweeping a statement. In the case of the few, like me, I'd say we've had enough of the right being allowed to set the terms of the debate, especially after eight long years of the Bushies. It'll probably ramp down eventually. Depending on the tone of the right, of course.

Quoting bjkeefe: Spoken like a true rightwinger.

Really? I suppose my support for universal health care is also right wing too? How about my support for ending the war on drugs (although I will concede that was William F. Buckley's POV too). How about my support for gay marriage? I'm sorry I'm not cookie cutter liberal.

Watching Haidt in and of itself makes me pissed off. He's got some worthwhile thoughts, but overall his observations strike me as either banal or over-generalized. I also find him to be one of those people who claims to be a liberal but who seems to spend all of his time scolding other liberals and apologizing for conservatives, no matter what they say or do.

I suppose I can see why he appeals to you, come to think of it.

You say this so pejoratively, and yet Haidt is equally revered by the two guys on Science Saturday that you fawn over. Why is it wrong to genuinely make the effort to try and see another viewpoint, instead of saying "oh I read that" and dismiss it outright?

Unless you're prepared to say the same thing about the righty commenters, I can't even begin

Quoting sugarkang: Really? I suppose my support ... [blah, blah, blah]

I said "Spoken like a true rightwinger," and it was underneath a specific quoted comment.

You say this so pejoratively, and yet Haidt is equally revered by the two guys on Science Saturday that you fawn over.

This is almost too stupid to believe. Are you really unable to grasp the concept that it's possible to like somebody (or "fawn over," to use your hyperbole) while at the same time not agreeing with every last thing he says?

Why is it wrong to genuinely make the effort to try and see another viewpoint, instead of saying "oh I read that" and dismiss it outright?

Why is it so hard for you to avoid using a straw man argument?

I would if I spent my days on fox news forums, but I don't.

I was speaking of the rightwing commenters on this board.

I'm not going to specifically address your last message because it's getting too ad hominem. I'll just say this: If I'd started out on this board a year ago, I would have spent most of my time agreeing with you. Now that Obama and 59 senators are in power, I just feel it is my patriotic duty to question the liberal perspective. Libertarians have a fundamental distrust of power, remember?

Do it like the NYTimes and only post comments after they've been cleared.

Do not under any circumstances do this. Kiss of death to any conversation.

"You'll see the color—and feel the difference" when the Gray Lady hires Glenn Reynolds for its token non-"progressive" spot. Like Clairol's "Gray Solution," Instapundit will give the Gray Lady "long-lasting coverage" of its "resistant grays."

Quoting sugarkang: I'm not going to specifically address your last message because it's getting too ad hominem.

Suit yourself. For the record, however: I said one of your statements was stupid, which it was, and pointed out why. I said another (which was phrased as a question) was a straw man argument, which it was, and refused therefore to dignify it with a response. This is not what ad hominem means.

I'll just say this:

If I'd started out on this board a year ago ...

You'd know a lot more about the dynamics of this board and the people who have been on it, and maybe you'd realize how irritating your new-to-scene pronouncements about it are. Oh, sorry, you were saying?

If I'd started out on this board a year ago, I would have spent most of my time agreeing with you.

Oddly enough, I feel no great sense of loss.

Now that Obama and 59 senators are in power, I just feel it is my patriotic duty to question the liberal perspective.

Libertarians have a fundamental distrust of power, remember?

I have no respect for people who insist on doing things, or who insist on explaining their reasons for doing things, by starting with an identification

Thinking about forking over some money, I most certainly would be happy to, if I could. But my few measly euro's would probably not keep the wolf off the back door. Short of winning a lottery, my pockets will remain empty for the foreseeable future.
More advertising is needed, I should think. Both pundits and punters are drawn from a cross section of Americans who like to read and think. Surely there are more readers out there, and more publishers, colleges, etc. Let's, as commenters, try to spread the word, so more folks tune in to watch. As for the commenters: in every comment section, there is a group of regulars. Compared to most comment sections, BHTv's is a Socratic meeting. Our commenters are usually a kind-hearted bunch, but maybe some people should take a short break. Go gather some new ideas yourselves, take some snowy walks, and give the floor to some fresh faces. As for Bob and Mickey, it's the Odd Couple all over again. Such joy!

Quoting otto:

Do it like the NYTimes and only post comments after they've been cleared.

Do not under any circumstances do this. Kiss of death to any conversation.

Second that.

Quoting Kandigol: ... and give the floor to some fresh faces.

You say that as though it's not possible for more than one person to post a comment at a time. I don't buy this. There's no reason why "the more the merrier" doesn't apply. [Added] Nonetheless, I will give your suggestion some thought.

Quoting Sissy Willis: "You'll see the color—and feel the difference" when the Gray Lady hires Glenn Reynolds for its token non-"progressive" spot. Like Clairol's "Gray Solution," Instapundit will give the Gray Lady "long-lasting coverage" of its "resistant grays."

But after Heh. Indeed., what will he say for the next 748 words?

Quoting bjkeefe: But after Heh. Indeed., what will he say for the next 748 words?

25 links to news articles about the White House thermostat, with an outraged pullquote from Ann Althouse? (And maybe a snappy line about how there's snow in Knoxville this winter.)

Okay, you win.

Quoting osmium: 1) Neocon has morphed into a shorthand for someone who has an interventionist foreign policy, was on the right and supported the Iraq war. But I think the old meaning of Neocon is someone who thinks cultural modernity is bad and that the masses have to be reintroduced to religion to save society. I would rather have a war supporter writing for the Times than that kind of Neocon, if I had to pick. (I have been thinking about this since C. Hitchens sort of called himself a Neocon on BhTV, and I was like LOL Whut? Am I incorrect?)

2) The only bad think about BhTV is that Mickey doesn't do diavlogs with other people very often anymore.

3) I would pledge real American dollars for Bloggingheads, of course.

According to Merriam Webster on line: neoˇconˇserˇvaˇtive Function:
noun
Date:
1952 1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism 2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
— neoˇconˇserˇvaˇtism Listen to the pronunciation of neoconservatism \-və-ˌti-zəm\ noun
— neoconservative adjective That is certainly the definition I understand and as definition 1: fits me I guess that I am a neoconservative. Bob: I stopped posting to the forum in the

"The lefty commenters seem like a bunch of Che Guevaras ready to pop a cap in the skulls of dissenters."
There's nothing like extreme incivility and bizarrely hyperbolic sarcasm in defense of civility and against the evils of sarcasm. If for a minute I took this critique (infantile whine, really) against the alleged excesses of leftie commenters here seriously, that bit of hypocrisy pretty much ended it.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/174...0:20&out=70:30 Having a comments section is like owning a terrier. You just have to give them enough to do or they start misbehaving. In terms of the front page, though, I have never seen a good argument against aggressively pruning the comments. Most of us are talking to each other, not to 'the world' (i.e. the people who show up only to watch the video) and there's no reason to advertise what amounts to IM conversations when they wouldn't be of interest to the general audience.

I would like to comment on the "pledge" aspect of the diavlog. Whether it be voluntary or mandatory I'll leave that up to the powers that be. I think an annual pledge or fee from $40 to $60 a year is reasonable. I base this on what I what a couple other services charge on the Net. One example is Pajamas Media which is a politically conservative website. To access their Pajamas TV which has a number of daily interview discussions and the like is $37 a year. Another is Carbonite which is a backup database facility for computers. Their annual fee is $50. Now, I find BHTV a valuable resource and enjoy it immensely. I would gladly support it financially in the amounts I suggested. John

This is the squishiest nonsense nonanswer ever. As gratifying as it may feel to puff up your chest and posture all hawk-talky on China, people need to recognize that the correct answer to Bob's question is: "nothing, there is not a damn thing we can do."

I happily support my local NPR station, and I'd happily support bloggingheads.tv. I've been a cheerleader/promoter of this site from the start and the idea of this place not being around in a year is terrible! Now I'm imagining all the cool perks you could offer to donors. I'd cherish a signed copy of Non-Zero

P.S. More Wright vs Kaus Loury vs Mcwhorter Corn vs Pinkerton Eric Alterman Glenn Greenwald and Eli Lake! Por favor.

Quoting sugarkang: Absolutely. I flip between Paul Krugman's column and Cato's Daily Podcast to try and get a handle on the different viewpoints. I would love to see a Keynesian vs. Austrian.

Yeah McWhorter is just one of my favorite diavloggers. I especially liked the episode where he destroyed Ta-Nehisi Coates in logic as well as civility.

What one was that again? I'd bet McWhorter himself would disagree with that assessment.

I'd donate $100 a year

I watched the video - pretty good. hosted by lefties, audience of lefties, yet a respectful and enthusiastic audience for his views which are, at least partially, disrespectful to those listening. then I noticed an associated video titled "heritage foundation: how liberals think" over on the right side of the page and clicked it. liberals "want to keep saddam's prison rape rooms up and running", Lefties are not just wrong they "are diametrically opposed to doing the right thing". they reject the idea of being right" etc. etc. that snapped me back to reality - there is a huge right wing noise machine devoted to telling me that I am anti-american and Amoral. I reject that. and it really ticks me off the point that i don't mind being a little acerbic and in-your-face about my beliefs. on another note: my only comment that was deleted by the moderator here on BHTV was when i questioned how left-wing feminists square their feminism with creating women-only forums - which seems to me to undercut the whole left/feminist idea of inclusion and diversity. I've yet to figure out how, exactly, that crossed the line. moderator? care to comment? any defense?

I gotta call BS. Look at the comments that Glen Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Bill Scher, Stephen Walt, etc., etc. have been subject to from right-wing commentors. I would say that nastiness of comments has to do with nastiness of the diavlogger and/or ridiculous nature of their arguments. Perfect example: Eli Lake. In the first diavlog he made all kinds of just silly right-wing talking points ad extremis, and the commentors gave him a beat-down. Since then, he has been much better and gets much better treatment. (Heck, he's one of my favorites now.) David Frum and Jim Pinkerton also get largely commendable treatment when they don't act like idiots. The leftists-are nastier meme, also is just complete nonsense. Go to any right-wing website and tell me that the level of nasitness and vitriol is in any way appreciably different on either side. For that matter, with a few exceptions aside, commentors here are pretty tame and largely stick to substantive debate. Even the diavloggers have mentioned the high quality of the BH comments section several times. If we are highly held in the mind of Heather Hurlburt, we must be doing something right.

Quoting sugarkang: Libertarians have a fundamental distrust of power, remember?

This is completely wrong. (Depending on the kind of libertarian you're talking about.) If you're talking about the kind of libertarianism found in America, then your statement should be modified to read, "Libertarians have a fundamental distrust of *public* power, i.e., democratic government. "True" libertarians (i.e., libertarians according to the original meaning of the term), virtually unknown in the United States, are skeptical of ALL power -- private and public. But questioning private power is anathema to American-style libertarians, who would, if they could, severely limit the ability of the people (through government) to regulate or mitigate the effects of unfettered private power. A typical example to illustrate the contrast would be limits on pollution. A true libertarian would regard pollution as an abuse of private power and would consider democratic government as a possible source of remedy through legislation limiting the right of corporations to poison air, land, or water. American-style libertarians, on the other hand, typically would consider government regulation of pollution to be the abuse of power, and would leave regulation of pollution up to the markets. An even better example is segregation: real libertarians consider discrimination in access to public accommodations

I would be happy to donate. But only as long as I can make sarcastic comments about David Frum.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I gotta call BS. Look at the comments that Glen Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Bill Scher, Stephen Walt, etc., etc. have been subject to from right-wing commentors. I would say that nastiness of comments has to do with nastiness of the diavlogger and/or ridiculous nature of their arguments. Perfect example: Eli Lake. In the first diavlog he made all kinds of just silly right-wing talking points ad extremis, and the commentors gave him a beat-down. Since then, he has been much better and gets much better treatment. (Heck, he's one of my favorites now.) David Frum and Jim Pinkerton also get largely commendable treatment when they don't act like idiots.

The leftists-are nastier meme, also is just complete nonsense. Go to any right-wing website and tell me that the level of nasitness and vitriol is in any way appreciably different on either side. For that matter, with a few exceptions aside, commentors here are pretty tame and largely stick to substantive debate. Even the diavloggers have mentioned the high quality of the BH comments section several times. If we are highly held in the mind of Heather Hurlburt, we must be doing something right.

Eli really is an interesting case study. As

Sure, of course I would donate. Do you accept food stamps? Kidding! But I am an impoverished college student, so $25 or $50 bucks a couple times a year is probably the most I could offer. Assuming tomorrow's Powerball drawing doesn't change things.

I challenge the whole premise. If you are trying to make this a profitable site, I doubt watering down the comments for "polite society" helps that cause. In fact, if you want to get linked to you should probably promote the comment section arguments as much as you do the divalogers'. Frequently the commentors, even the sarcastic ones, seem better informed and provide more information than the heads. I don't think Bob has bought into the internet as a tool for democracy as much as he thinks he has.

I was more responding to your response to harkin: "a lot of the incivility here on this board starts with a few conservative commenters who seem to like nothing finer than coming here to drop flame bait or who often seem bent on picking fights". Presumably you would agree that a lot of the incivility on this board starts with self-congratulatory atheists or even liberals?

The comment board could be improved by simply limiting the number of posts any commenter could make on one diavlog. If commenters were limited to, say, three comments, they might be less inclined to waste, so to speak, a comment on banalities. The board is often dominated by a small minority of commenters making a large majority of comments. This is detrimental regardless of the tone or substance of the comments. Some people Just. Don't. Know. When. To. Shut. Up.

Look at how the discussion about the need for "civility" on this forum has radiated so much more heat than light. If such a bland discussion topic as that on this board can't avoid collapsing to hair-pulling and shouting, what chance is there that people will ever cease hostilities when discussing the critical issues of the day? It's an open forum. No matter who you are, there will be a few people joining the discussion who you genuinely will not care for and whose comments you will find tiresome, pointless, and perhaps even outrageous. If you can't figure out a way to cope with that (which may or may not involve a little snarky return-fire), then don't even read the comments, because life is to short to get all cranky on a regular basis.

The very fact that people are asking "who will replace Kristol (who was never really a mainstream conservative) as The Conservtive NYT Writer?" tells you everything you need to know about the NYT.

I would like to retract a part of what I said earlier about the the possible financial needs of BHTV. Granted, if it's a pledge or mandatory contribution that will be up the the powers that be. However, I find "pledge weeks" to be insufferably boring. Just my take on it for "what it it's worth" (borrowed from Stephen Stills as in "Buffalo Springfield"). John

To replace Bill Kristol if that does occur how about a "dyed and the wool" Ron Paul type libertarian? Come to think of it Congressman Paul himself would be a good fit there. He appears to be a prolific writer and may have access to inside scoops. Just a suggestion. John

But only as long as I can make sarcastic comments about David Frum.

Part of the problem is that some of the b-heads have become deathly boring post-Bush. Frum was interesting for a while in that he was the character who gave Bush his "axis of evil" line. Now, who cares? Jonah Goldberg sustained a little interest when he wrote a book calling liberals fascists, but that's entertaining once -- for maybe 10 minutes. The second and third time around you doze off. Lefties can be boring too. People like David Corn avoid becoming tedious because he is very funny and plays well with Pinkerton, who also has a good sense of humor. But neither of them really has anything particularly enlightening to say. I actually like to listen to Eli Lake when he's on because , even though I disagree with him on most things, he really does his homework and tries to bring fresh data to the discussion. Even Glenn Lowry, who is brilliant, probably shouldn't be doing 20 programs a year. He works well with Josh Cohen and John McWhorter, and they are especially interesting because they have real expertise in different fields

Quoting ohcomeon: I challenge the whole premise. If you are trying to make this a profitable site, I doubt watering down the comments for "polite society" helps that cause. In fact, if you want to get linked to you should probably promote the comment section arguments as much as you do the divalogers'. Frequently the commentors, even the sarcastic ones, seem better informed and provide more information than the heads. I don't think Bob has bought into the internet as a tool for democracy as much as he thinks he has.

Excellent points. Let free speech reign... Including Bob's lily-livered request for civility. This is not the first time that this request has been made. But there seems to be a disconnect in the feedback loop. Bob - perhaps convinced by the thin-skinned Mickey- disengaged from the commenters. Many of us have a least a rooting interest in the continuation of this site. Attempts by commenters at influencing the line-up selections or subject matter seem to have fallen on deaf ears. That would be fine, even if you asked for my money. As long as the terms of the relationship are clear. Long live bhtv. No thought or speech

Quoting Anyuser: The comment board could be improved by simply limiting the number of posts any commenter could make on one diavlog. If commenters were limited to, say, three comments, they might be less inclined to waste, so to speak, a comment on banalities. The board is often dominated by a small minority of commenters making a large majority of comments. This is detrimental regardless of the tone or substance of the comments. Some people Just. Don't. Know. When. To. Shut. Up.

On the other hand, some people have Far. More. To. Say. Than. Others. I am one of them.

Quoting Francoamerican: On the other hand, some people have Far. More. To. Say. Than. Others.

I am one of them.

I ask this only lovingly: one of whom: "some people" or "others"? Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: I ask this only lovingly: one of whom: "some people" or "others"?

Itzik Basman

Like Walt Whitman I embrace multitudes.

Quoting Bobby G: I was more responding to your response to harkin: "a lot of the incivility here on this board starts with a few conservative commenters who seem to like nothing finer than coming here to drop flame bait or who often seem bent on picking fights". Presumably you would agree that a lot of the incivility on this board starts with self-congratulatory atheists or even liberals?

I wouldn't say "a lot," no. I don't think there's that much self-congratulation, whether by atheists or liberals or anybody else. I acknowledge that there are some comments that I could imagine are seen this way by non-atheists and/or non-liberals, and I also acknowledge that given my own leanings, it may be hard for me to realize how some other comments come across. I will make an effort to watch out for this on my own part, but I also think the larger problem is this: there has long been a standard to the discourse in the US where conservatives and religious types get to say whatever they want, while liberals are expected to limit themselves to murmured disagreements and atheists are expected never to criticize religious

Quoting ohcomeon: [...]

I'll second graz. That's a really interesting take, ohc. While I complain as much as anybody about the number of shoutfests on TV, there's no doubt that the ones that have and hold the largest audiences are the most provocative and in-your-face ones. I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it does seem to be what most people want. Holding up BH.tv as something different is something we long-time fans are fond of doing, but it's hard not to think such an approach condemns the site to permanent niche status. If the goal is to make money with the site, Bob's principles concerning civility may have to be compromised. On a related note, I think it's funny how Bob is always urging dispute and dish among the diavloggers as a way to drive traffic.

With all due respect Mickey, you have to quell inflation before real estate can rally. The next Fed governor will likely have to jack rates to the moon to contain inflation. Jacking rates will liquidate real estate once and for all, because it will create forced selling of real estate (essentially real estate margin calls). The other thing to keep in mind is that right now we are in deflation and haven't yet even seen inflation rear it's head. So that tells you how far we have to go.

In the interests of precision in poetry, Walt didn't "embrace" multitudes, he "contained" them.

Quoting Anyuser: The comment board could be improved by simply limiting the number of posts any commenter could make on one diavlog. If commenters were limited to, say, three comments, they might be less inclined to waste, so to speak, a comment on banalities. The board is often dominated by a small minority of commenters making a large majority of comments. This is detrimental regardless of the tone or substance of the comments. Some people Just. Don't. Know. When. To. Shut. Up.

How much would you pay to get your way, Anyuser? More specifically, how much would you pay to quiet me? If you're well-off, and sufficiently bothered by my presence, maybe we would could end BH.tv's funding problems right there. I'd be willing to take one for the team. On a related note, I think the comment board could be improved simply by limiting the number of posts any commenter could make on the topic of how many comments a commenter could make.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060061.html Excerpt:

A new study of Jewish Israelis shows that most accept the 'official version' of the history of the conflict with the Palestinians. Is it any wonder, then, that the same public also buys the establishment explanation of the operation in Gaza?

A pioneering research study dealing with Israeli Jews' memory of the conflict with the Arabs, from its inception to the present, came into the world together with the war in Gaza. The sweeping support for Operation Cast Lead confirmed the main diagnosis that arises from the study, conducted by Daniel Bar-Tal, one of the world's leading political psychologists, and Rafi Nets-Zehngut, a doctoral student: Israeli Jews' consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering. The fighting in Gaza dashed the little hope Bar-Tal had left - that this public would exchange the drums of war for the cooing of doves.

"Most of the nation retains a simplistic collective memory of the conflict, a black-and-white memory that portrays us in a very positive light and the Arabs in a very negative one," says the professor from Tel Aviv University. This memory, along with

Quoting Tara Davis: Look at how the discussion about the need for "civility" on this forum has radiated so much more heat than light.

Don't you think this is usually the case whenever a discussion gets meta? It's like the old joke about academic debates -- the disputes are so fierce because the stakes are so small.

Sorry for replying to my own post. I was reading comments and commenting while Bob and Mickey were mired in their Middle-East speculation, and that comment was written before I had gotten to Bob's plea at the end. I don't believe I've ever said anything nasty about any of the guests on bloggingheads. There are plenty I don't care for (Pinkerton, for starters), but if I see somebody I'm not interested in, I usually just skip past them. Unless I'm *really* bored, there's no reason for me to watch, for example, the recent Hurlburt/Frum discussion, but you'll never hear me kicking and screaming to get rid of either of them, because I'm sure there are those who are interested, and... hey look, that wacky Ann Althouse (who I do sometimes find amusing) is discussing feminism in the very next episode. I can watch that, instead! But in spite of the fact that I choose "the high road" when discussing the issues brought forward by the various diavloggers, I see nothing wrong with various other people purging the last lingering symptoms of their Bush Derrangement Syndrome by pouring their scorn on David Frum. Free expression includes hateful expression, and somebody who genuinely believes the Iraq War

Quoting bjkeefe: Don't you think this is usually the case whenever a discussion gets meta? It's like the old joke about academic debates -- the disputes are so fierce because the stakes are so small.

I think it's usually the case when discussion happens at all, which is kind of what my point was. You can't invite the entire world into your discussion without suffering a few idiots. As George Carlin once pointed out, half of all people are, by definition, below average intellects. (To nitpick, George's math wasn't quite correct, unless there's a miraculously well-balanced distribution above and below the mean, but the basic thrust of what he was trying to say holds true.)

Quoting bjkeefe: ...the disputes are so fierce because the stakes are so small.

Uh, did I miss something? The understanding I got from Bob in this conversation is that bloggingheads TV is facing going out of business soon, and the vicious, puerile, sarcastic nature of our commentariat is worsening the situation. Perhaps, after 8 years of Bushies, we no longer believe it when anyone says we're facing an existential threat. I've been gone from here (mostly) for the past several months, and on coming back, I've been astonished at the worsening tone in the comments section. I thought it was just me, but apparently it isn't. People whose comments I used to read without fail now seem vile to me. Generally, I just listen to the diavlogs and skip the comments now, and that feels like a real loss. In the past I've made sarcastic comments about Mickey. I've rued that elsewhere in comments, and I now apologize. I'm deeply grateful for bhtv and for all of our guests, even when I don't agree with a word they say.

Quoting Tara Davis: [...]

Agreed.

Quoting Bokonon: [...]

Stipulating that your view of decreased civility is true, do you think this is sufficient to explain why BH.tv is having money problems? Do you think a more abrasive comment section could kill a site? I don't. I think for example of YouTube, which if not yet making a lot of money certainly has had no trouble growing in traffic, and which also features some of the dumbest and personal attack-filled comment sections on the planet. The overwhelming majority of the visitors, therefore, just ignore the comments.

Quoting Wonderment: Part of the problem is that some of the b-heads have become deathly boring post-Bush. Frum was interesting for a while in that he was the character who gave Bush his "axis of evil" line. Now, who cares?

True. It's also true that BH.tv, like the media in general, seems bent on continuing to give a large platform to those who got so many things wrong over the past eight years, while still not inviting very many who got things right.

Quoting bjkeefe: I will make an effort to watch out for this on my own part, but I also think the larger problem is this: there has long been a standard to the discourse in the US where conservatives and religious types get to say whatever they want, while liberals are expected to limit themselves to murmured disagreements and atheists are expected never to criticize religious beliefs. Think of how many times someone from the right will play the "you're a liberal so you have to be tolerant" card. I believe that conservative and religious types are especially skilled at, or at least too used to, playing the victim and working the refs, and despite their claims of being in the majority, tend to act awfully put-upon whenever they find themselves in a situation where a few voices are speaking up against them.

And how. I think many conservatives haven't figured out that you can't just bully liberals anymore, and they keep wigging out when it doesn't work. The sad fact is that after eight years of Bush, after Iraq, after the whole sorry litany, it's just impossible to be sane, sober, and Republican. There's a good

Quoting Wonderment: In the interests of precision in poetry, Walt didn't "embrace" multitudes, he "contained" them.

Thank you, I must have been thinking of Baudelaire, who described his relationship to the crowd as prostitution. In the final analysis, though, I suppose that embracing multitudes or containing them are equally difficult to imagine...unless you are a poet.

Quoting Anyuser: If commenters were limited to, say, three comments, they might be less inclined to waste, so to speak, a comment on banalities. The board is often dominated by a small minority of commenters making a large majority of comments. This is detrimental regardless of the tone or substance of the comments.

Hi and welcome to the internet (see: Will Wilkinson and Clay Shirky on How Wikipedia Works)

By my count, it's been an awfully long time since you've had anyone with deep knowledge of economics and finance. [I mean this with love, guys.] Bob Shiller has a book out (buy it! read it!) and his views are easy to track down. Nouriel Roubini is bigger than Michael Jackson these days. I'd suggest non-Davos hoppers such as Mish Shedlock, Barry Ritholtz, Chris Whalen, Yves Smith (a good get), Bob Hoye, OR.....a bhtv first: a masked diavlog between secretive, anonymous, but highly influential bloggers such as Calculated Risk, Jesse (@ Cafe Americain), and Cassandra (nihoncassandra, Cassandra does Tokyo). [n.b: a previously-anonymous, highly influential guest blogger at CR--writing under the pseudonym Tanta--died last year at a young age.]

Quoting Bokonon: Uh, did I miss something? The understanding I got from Bob in this conversation is that bloggingheads TV is facing going out of business soon, and the vicious, puerile, sarcastic nature of our commentariat is worsening the situation.

I would second this understanding.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Agreed. Notice that most of the recipients of the harshest comments (Frum, Goldbergh, Kagan) are people who make their living by spouting ridiculous/hateful comments about others.

Add to that list Conn Carroll for sure. If Bob wants to stop sarcasm and other less than polite comments directed at the diavloggers, he might start by asking Conn if he really thinks calling Obama "The Messiah" contributes anything useful to the discourse. Before harkin starts typing in fury about liberal calls for censorship and banning, let me be clear: Conn is perfectly within his rights to call Obama whatever he wants. He is, however, asking for the same tone in response, and if Bob is so worried about commenter civility, he should realize this. Can't have provocative diavloggers without some in the audience being provoked.

It's the right vs. left debate that is stale, poisonous and incoherent. And that's usually when people start shouting. I immediately loose respect for any commenter that uses the words "you lefties" or "you righties", "you liberal" or "you conservative", and for that matter "you Libertarians". Let's discuss the issues one at a time. Let's leave the partisanship out of it. For one, what politicians say is not what they believe and does not match with what they do when in power. Who cares who's "running" the country. The POTUS, the Congress, they are the ones who pretend to be in charge. We, at best, get to choose the intonation of their voices, their genetic make-up, their personality. That's it. Someone's group allegiances don't interest in the least.

I want to see bloggingheads continue; it is one of the few internet sites that actually lives up to the promises that we all held out for the internet when it was emerging. I'm in Western Pennsylvania, I have college and university colleagues in rural Central Pennsylvania, I have colleagues in Ohio and West Virginia -- I send them links to vlogs, some of which we use in our classrooms. Without bloggingheads the only "political, social and cultural talk" many of my students would be exposed to would be talk radio -- which gets them mad, but doesn't stimulate thought. Exposing my students to bloggingheads gives them an alternative approach to thinking and talking about society. It's lively, it holds their attention and it's substantive. The benefit for me, beyond using it in the classroom, is that it plugs me into conversations that are considerably more interesting than sitting around talking about the Steelers all of the time. Bloggingheads fulfills the promise of the internet because it reduces the cognitive isolation of people in the hinterlands (or who sometimes feel like they are in the hinterlands). This is what the internet should be all about.

Quoting kidneystones: A fairly large number of us have the opportunity to participate in other moderated forums where potty-mouth free-for-all fights are not just discouraged, but unheard of. I recently attended a conference where I was able to exchange ideas on many of the same topics discussed here, including ideological bias and blindness. Not a harsh word was uttered. Not hard to believe, but inconceivable in the current bhtv play-pen.

So tell me then, kidney, what brings you back to this forum? If you've got other places to discuss and don't like it here, why have you jumped back in? [Added] I also wonder how you'd characterize the six months' worth of effort you spent posting outright lies about Obama as anything but acting like this was your playpen.

Quoting bjkeefe: Stipulating that your view of decreased civility is true, do you think this is sufficient to explain why BH.tv is having money problems? Do you think a more abrasive comment section could kill a site?

I don't. I think for example of YouTube, which if not yet making a lot of money certainly has had no trouble growing in traffic, and which also features some of the dumbest and personal attack-filled comment sections on the planet. The overwhelming majority of the visitors, therefore, just ignore the comments.

Obviously its not sufficient--I would guess whatever money troubles the site has are tied up with the larger global economic meltdown (and/or Bob's gambling and drug habits). But Bloggingheads is completely different from YouTube, which can attract 500K people to watch an 8 second video of a seventeen-year-old in a bikini jumping up and down. And the comments on YouTube make me fear for the future of humanity. Whenever Bob talks about the commenters, he always says that we're a selling point for the site. And if Bob, who runs the site, says that overly caustic comments are hurting the site's future existence, I think we should take

Quoting Jyminee: Obviously its not sufficient--I would guess whatever money troubles the site has are tied up with the larger global economic meltdown (and/or Bob's gambling and drug habits). But Bloggingheads is completely different from YouTube, which can attract 500K people to watch an 8 second video of a seventeen-year-old in a bikini jumping up and down. And the comments on YouTube make me fear for the future of humanity.

Whenever Bob talks about the commenters, he always says that we're a selling point for the site. And if Bob, who runs the site, says that overly caustic comments are hurting the site's future existence, I think we should take him at his word.

Good answer. I'd be close to accepting it wholeheartedly were it not for ohcomeon's earlier comment, which also makes a lot of sense to me. Now that I think about it, though, I'd also say that if Bob is and has been using the comments part of the site as a selling point, the problems ultimately aren't that bad.

Quoting kidneystones: A fairly large number of us have the opportunity to participate in other moderated forums where potty-mouth free-for-all fights are not just discouraged, but unheard of. I recently attended a conference where I was able to exchange ideas on many of the same topics discussed here, including ideological bias and blindness. Not a harsh word was uttered. Not hard to believe, but inconceivable in the current bhtv play-pen.

You can't have it both ways renalrocks. I suggest that matthawk encourage his/her students to examine your output on this site in light of your comment. Why have you returned ... again... and again... and again? The beauty of the bhtv comments is that the likes of you will never rule.
Tyrants need not apply for the moderator post.

Quoting bjkeefe: Add to that list Conn Carroll for sure. If Bob wants to stop sarcasm and other less than polite comments directed at the diavloggers, he might start by asking Conn if he really thinks calling Obama "The Messiah" contributes anything useful to the discourse.

Indeed. Conn doesn't even show respect for the person he's diavlogging with. He's been laughing derisively at Bill Scher and his other interlocutors, and otherwise signaling his contempt for them, ever since he lost (or gave up) his non-partisan Hotline gig. Even when he was playing at a neutral hotline reporter in his earliest BHTV appearances, he could not contain his contempt, though it wasn't nearly as bad then as it has been since. Maybe Bob should issue a plea to Conn to treat Bill Scher with some respect. Note: I have not watched this diavlog, yet. For all I know, in this episode, Conn is the picture of good manners. I will note that in his last diavlog with Bill, he was uncharacteristically polite. I will also note that there are many pairings on BHTV who strongly disagree about politics (e.g., Corn/Pinkerton), who nevertheless treat one another with respect. I think it's simple common sense. First of all, people

Quoting kidneystones: ... potty-mouth free-for-all fights ...

Quoting harkin: Bob, regarding civility.

It's a bit late. The clique here has been profane ...

Let's let a BH.tv diavlogger address this one:

I hereby decree PERLSTEIN'S LAW:

In an online argument, the badder a wingnut gets his butt beat, the more likely they are to excoriate the butt-beater for using bad words.

Quoting kidneystones: graz writes...[...]

...I've plenty of opportunities to exchange ideas among folks who enjoy a vigorous give and take; and who actually have something to say. That can happen here, but not given the affection some have for bile...

It does happen here quite frequently in my estimation. And I seem to recall that you have a lot to offer when you refrain from standing above in judgment, instead of engaging with opposing ideas.

Quoting bjkeefe: Again you make this claim, and again I challenge you to document it.

Which you won't be able to do, unless you quote a joke out of context.

It took me just a few minutes to find these examples (by checking my own responses and thankfully avoiding your own prodigious output) of your attempting to dictate who/what is and isn't permissable to be here. If these were jokes, your sense of humor has my condolences.

Quoting bjkeefe: Bloggingheads is now linking to Newsbusters? And you have the nerve to criticize Obama for kowtowing to the lunatic fringe of the right, Bob?

Instead of the usual Happy Happy, let's make a New Year's Resolution not to do that anymore.

Quoting bjkeefe: Bill:

I'm sorry to have to stop listening to you, but I can't take Conn anymore. Please find someone else to talk to. Conn Carroll makes Michael Goldfarb seem like a decent human being. I don't know how you put up with him. More to the point, I don't know why you do.

As I've said before to Bob, please feel free to ask anyone you feel has the potential to bring civilized, informed discussion to BhTV. If I disagree with what they

Quoting harkin: It took me just a few minutes to find these examples (by checking my own responses and thankfully avoiding your own prodigious output) of your attempting to dictate who/what is and isn't permissable to be here. If these were jokes, your sense of humor has my condolences.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe
Bloggingheads is now linking to Newsbusters? And you have the nerve to criticize Obama for kowtowing to the lunatic fringe of the right, Bob?

Instead of the usual Happy Happy, let's make a New Year's Resolution not to do that anymore.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe
Bill:

I'm sorry to have to stop listening to you, but I can't take Conn anymore. Please find someone else to talk to. Conn Carroll makes Michael Goldfarb seem like a decent human being. I don't know how you put up with him. More to the point, I don't know why you do.

As I've said before to Bob, please feel free to ask anyone you feel has the potential to bring civilized, informed discussion to BhTV. If I disagree with what they say I may comment but I would never presume to dictate who gets heard and who doesnt.

I don't see the

Quoting harkin: It took me just a few minutes to find these examples (by checking my own responses and thankfully avoiding your own prodigious output) of your attempting to dictate who/what is and isn't permissable to be here.

But you have to keep in mind, he only unsheathes his mighty sword of scorn against bloggers if they really, really deserve it. I honestly think the guy has OCD. 27 and counting.

Quoting Anyuser: But you have to keep in mind, he only unsheathes his mighty sword of scorn against bloggers if they really, really deserve it. I honestly think the guy has OCD.

27 and counting.

You're counting my comments and I'm the one with OCD?

Actually this is the context from Song of Myself: Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) I just glanced at that poem: as per its title, Whitman, who I adored when I read him in university, was a tad self absorbed. My tastes now run to poets like Wallace Stevens. For example, considering I'm blanketed under a mass of snow north of the 49th: The Snowman One must have a mind of winter
To regard the frost and the boughs
Of the pine-trees crusted with snow; And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves, Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place For the listener, who listens in the snow,
And, nothing himself, beholds
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is. Now *that* is precision in poetry. Itzik basman

It's good to have an appeal for civility in our public discourse. Perhaps our two interlocutors would like to devote some time contemplating how they, themselves, contribute to the atmosphere of uncivility by their sneers of contempt, their caustic asides, their sarcasm for the alternative point of view, their belittling of a world-view not identical to their own. BH is not ever going to become a commercial success, because it merely duplicates the fatal weakness of the MSM since the 1970's: partisan proselytizing posing as news, grown into the attempt to commercialize "us versus them" as a form of bloodless entertainment. The audience will pay to see the blood; for bloodless conflict they will turn the channel to watch sports. There is a vital function performed by criticism. But when the criticism on BHTV devolves into mere sneering dismissiveness by either of our Duo, the consumer is left with the feeling that what is posed as 'criticism' is merely vapid school-yard one-upsmanship. Great call for civility: look in a mirror to see part of the problem.

I share your preference. Whitman was an eternal adolescent, like so many Americans (yes, there I go again...), and his omnivorous appetite for experience only seldom translates into great poetry. I think Matthew Arnold was right when he said that "Whitman thought he was a big man because he lived in a big country." How strange, though, that a chilly New England insurance executive could write great poetry!

Quoting Francoamerican: ...How strange, though, that a chilly New England insurance executive could write great poetry!

Exactly. When I first read Stevens, it became a first assault on my immature romanticism, on my seeing artists as suffering demi gods, and on not judging people too readily by, say, the insurance policies they presided over, as I absurdly thought I had some corner on the world's hip wisdom. Itzik Basman

Quoting a Duoist: ...BH is not ever going to become a commercial success, because it merely duplicates the fatal weakness of the MSM since the 1970's: partisan proselytizing posing as news, grown into the attempt to commercialize "us versus them" as a form of bloodless entertainment... QUOTE]

I don't know whether this site will become a commerical success. If not, it won't, I don't think, be for the reason you cite. The Cross Fire model, which you advert to, is not the model here. The model here is engaged, civil debate. I think you have overreacted to an exaggerated misconception of the theory of this site with an opposite call for bloodless, near to robotic discussion stripping out all human traits and tics, a call for a kind of impossible personality micromanagement.

What will likely, if anything, obstruct this site's commerical success is this, taken from the introduction of a long and excellent essay by Jerry Coyne:

"...And so the culture wars continue between science and religion. On one side we have a scientific establishment and a court system determined to let children learn evolution rather than religious mythology, and on the other side the many Americans who passionately resist those efforts. It is

Water and sewer systems throughout the country are in dire need of upgrades and there is almost no chance that outlays provided for this type of work would substantially flow to foreign workers. I won't say that high-speed rail is a entirely foolish dream, but would it really be a nationally effective system? The traffic demand from New York to Los Angeles or New York to south Florida is probably high enough to fill trains, but the distances are such that high-speed trains are still many hours behind already existing sytems. The Boston to Washington, or possibly as far south as North Carolina might be viable. Los Angeles to the SF Bay area, possibly. Houston to Dallas Fort Worth, maybe? Nothing serving Chicago would be economically justifiable...Denver, Seattle, Memphis, Mobile, Boise, Cincinnati, Kansas City: it is all the same. Unfortunately for our country, lots of money has been squandered and we should be making hard choices on what to invest in. High-speed trains do not merit any national money at this time.

As you might already know, David Denby has a new book out, titled Snark, which as I understand it takes most of the planet to task for coarsening the discourse. Wonkette has an awesome response.

Quoting bjkeefe: As you might already know, David Denby has a new book out, titled Snark, which as I understand it takes most of the planet to task for coarsening the discourse.

Wonkette has an awesome response.

Here is an interesting contrast - with reference to former head GFK:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh013009.shtml

Quoting graz: Here is an interesting contrast - with reference to former head GFK:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh013009.shtml

He's got a bit of a point, but I don't agree with him completely. Plenty of people agree that part of what cost Gore the election was the way he was covered by the top dogs in the MSM, like MoDo. If I'm reading him correctly, Somerby is saying no one (among the liberal {blogosphere/online press/young punditocracy}) will admit this. Tellingly, he gives only one example to back up his assertion, and who knows if this is the only thing Garance has ever had to say on the topic? Plus, Wonkette has more funny in a hangnail off their left pinky than Somerby has in his whole corpus. I used to read him, but no more; I think he's turned into an egomaniacal grump. He should have hung it up years ago.

Quoting bjkeefe: As you might already know, David Denby has a new book out, titled Snark, which as I understand it takes most of the planet to task for coarsening the discourse.

Wonkette has an awesome response.

What a bunch of trivial, inside baseball horseshit this all is, primed for people with not much at all to do except get face tans off the light from their monitors. Itzik Basman

That was... harsh.

Oh the serendipity: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/174...0:30&out=30:32

Quoting AemJeff: That was... harsh.

Well, you know, being where he's from, Itzik prefers inside hockey.

I am going to add a comment even though it is probably too late for anyone to care or even read. Bob, I am totally confused by your request. I think you need to better describe what type of comments you find inappropriate. Since you already have a comments nanny I assume obscene and profane comments are already removed. I recall that you were removing comments that relate to a divalogger's appearance. So that really only leaves comments you feel are too harsh based on content or style of delivery. But this CAN'T be what you mean.
After all, this is the forum where I heard a divalogger call for police to be stationed outside every mosque in America. I can imagine that my response if I were a Muslim American might be, at the very least, a little sarcastic. But wouldn't this be appropriate sarcasm? You know, the kind you use in every conversation with Mickey. This is also the place where Althouse had a total meltdown and verbally ripped a remarkably polite divalog partner limb from limb. (Althouse is a case unto herself. She obviously uses your forum to deliberately incite controversy and drive traffic

Quoting ohcomeon: I am going to add a comment even though it is probably too late for anyone to care or even read.

Read it. Liked it.

And bj, Wonkette is totally awesome.

Quoting ohcomeon: And bj, Wonkette is totally awesome.

Aren't they? Man, I wish I could write like those people.

Well said Ms. Hussein!! I read. I cared.

I accept the rebuke Bob, I know I have gotten pretty acerbic from time to time.
There are a couple styles of argument, persuasive, and destructive. The latter seeks to obliterate the point of view of an opponent, highlighting the errors, often ridiculing people for being Sooooooooooo insane! How could you possibly think something sooo foolish etc etc.
I admit, when someone expresses a view so discordant with my sense of things my Strong temptation is to launch into the latter form of argument, a type of punishment for taking such a foolish position as I see it.
Anyway, needless to say the persuasive style is the most potent, it has the highest potential to convert others to your point of view, but it requires a more even hand, a more subtle touch, where retribution towards the other side for expressing seemingly sloppy logic is actually counterproductive. (though admittedly more satisfying, hey, I am human!)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Well said Ms. Hussein!! I read. I cared.

Me too. I read. I cared. I cried. nice post!

Quoting bjkeefe: Plus, Wonkette has more funny in a hangnail off their left pinky than Somerby has in his whole corpus. I used to read him, but no more; I think he's turned into an egomaniacal grump. He should have hung it up years ago.

I never understood Somerby's appeal. I could never tell what his point was.

I dunno, I was feeling bad about ruining Bob's site, but you guys have just about convinced me that 1) we're less sarcastic than his talkers, and 2) some of his talkers really do suck, and giving them shit is the only honest response. And if we do cause his site to fail, then maybe he'll go back to writing. That's what brought me here in the first place.

Quoting ohcomeon: Furthermore, I keep remembering your constant theme (repeated in this discussion) that the NYT and other major media outlets should simply stop allowing "neo-cons" and those that have been wrong about everything to continue to have a voice. It is time for people with new and better ideas to get their chance. Well, I think a lot of your commentors agree. So when you keep bringing back people who called those of us against the Iraq war from the beginning traitors you can expect so rather unpleasant reactions.

Seconded.

Fifthed.

Bob, it seemed that the first 13 minutes of the diavilog you hectored Mickey too much. I like to hear what Mickey has to say without childish interruptions and personal attacks. I understand that you have known Mickey for a long time and probably feel entitled to relate to him in this way. But if you can do it more creatively it would be less annoying.

Quoting kidneystones:
This is very good. Anonymous hacks hurl spitballs at area experts, leading academics, and professional writers and pundits.

I say we just create a shrine to the area experts, leading academics, professional writers and pundits. They require our utmost respect because they are, you know, THE 'area experts, leading academics, professional writers and pundits'. They are incapable of making mistakes and there are no disagreements between them. Like Hindu Gods, each and every one of those who are listed in the above categories know their place in the pantheon and give precedence to those above them. This is one of the first things I learned in my high school logic class.

The only problem arises when one person in one category disagrees with another from another category. In that case, they are required to flip a coin though I think they are better off coming and asking you since your grasp of logic is much superior to coin tossing. This also means that bloggignheads.tv is unnecessary and we can replace it with broadcasts of poojas since you know, there is nothing to discuss. THE ''area experts, leading academics, professional writers and pundits' are always right and we should just

read more . . .

I concur. I've gotten tired of Franco-American calling me a Yokel or a Hick. Even though he's French, he still doesn't have any manners (excepting his faux erudition). This guy can't say anything without belittling those who disagree with him. One mention of the Maginot Line and he farts in your general direction.

Preach it baby.

How about you take responsibility for your own words?

How does he not show 'respect'? Don't these guys continue to debate one another, time and again? Ipso facto respect, I'd say.

Quoting claymisher: I never understood Somerby's appeal. I could never tell what his point was.

He was a really sharp and spot-on media critic, particularly regarding the MSM top dogs and the Villagers who dominate talk TV, back when I was reading him regularly. I also gave him credit for calling bullshit on any number of lefties, even if I didn't always agree with his critiques. And, sometimes, he was just plain funny -- he had a way with words. I'm not sure if he changed or if I changed, but every time I've followed a link to his site in the past year or so, I've been discouraged by what feels like an excess of carping for the sake of carping, and bitterness overwhelming his erstwhile sense of humor.

Quoting Lyle: How about you take responsibility for your own words?

How do I not take responsibility for my own words?

By saying that someone other than yourself is to blame for what you wrote.

Quoting Lyle: By saying that someone other than yourself is to blame for what you wrote.

I don't say that. I take full responsibility for what I write. If you're speaking of my remarks to the effect that I have responded in kind, whether to diavloggers or other commenters, sorry, I just don't accept your characterization that this is an abdication of responsibility. I see no reason why I should have to bite my tongue when others are free to speak.

I haven't asked you to bite your tongue. I've only pointed out to you that you are blaming others for what you write, i.e., they provoked you. That's kind of weak, in my opinion. Write in your own 'tone' and not that of others... that's my point. Someone else's incivility, doesn't justify your own. By the way, I'm not sure Conn Carroll takes a 'tone' with Bill Scher. Even if he does, Bill doesn't seem to care cause he keeps doing bloggingheads with him.

Quoting Lyle: I haven't asked you to bite your tongue. I've only pointed out to you that you are blaming others for what you write, i.e., they provoked you. That's kind of weak, in my opinion.

Write in your own 'tone' and not that of others... that's my point. Someone else's incivility, doesn't justify your own.

You haven't convinced me, but I'll bear your thoughts in mind. Thanks for your input.

By the way, I'm not sure Conn Carroll takes a 'tone' with Bill Scher. Even if he does, Bill doesn't seem to care cause he keeps doing bloggingheads with him.

I agree with you about Bill's apparent attitude. That doesn't change my feeling (or Twin's, for example) that Conn's on-camera manner is sometimes objectionable, both in his interaction with Bill and in other ways, such as the way he refers to Barack Obama, and I'm not going to stop complaining about it. However, as I said, I'll keep your sense that my manner is also sometimes objectionable to others in mind.

If Conn Carroll's 'tone' is objectionable to you, than Bill Scher's 'tone' must be objectionable as well. Cause if Conn takes a certain 'tone' on Obama, Bill takes a certain 'tone' on Bush. Yet, you don't gripe about Bill's 'tone'. I think you disagree with his politics and don't like him because of it. Unfortunately this is bhtv and the whole point is to have opposing view points having it out with one another. Do you actually object to that? Should everyone agree with one another? Should Bill Scher be banned because he has a 'tone' when he talks about Bush?

Quoting Lyle: If Conn Carroll's 'tone' is objectionable to you, than Bill Scher's 'tone' must be objectionable as well. Cause if Conn takes a certain 'tone' on Obama, Bill takes a certain 'tone' on Bush. Yet, you don't gripe about Bill's 'tone'.

Well, no. However much it may be in the eye of the beholder and influenced by political leanings, I simply do not find Bill's manner nearly as objectionable as Conn's. Conn, in my view, is much more frequently sarcastic and dismissive. He also is much more irritating in reciting Heritage-sponsored mantras, rather than actually discussing current events and issues honestly. As to the two of them on Bush versus Obama, I'd point to the last eight years and say that there is every reason to speak of Bush with as much contempt as is possible to muster. In a just world, he'd be on trial right now in both US and world courts. One may disagree with Obama's views or the agenda he'd like to carry out, but no matter one's political leanings, he does not compare in the slightest as far as a record of disastrous actions and disrespect for the rule of law goes. Further, when Bill

Quoting bjkeefe:
Again with the "banning" talk. Will you and kidneystones and harkin please relax and stop blowing everything out of proportion? Jesus, what a bunch of victims.

WTF. Did they have a meeting and conspire to run with the post-partisan meme.
It seems they are floundering ideologically, so they are working the refs again and again. It fits right in with Bob's weak threat: that somehow incivility in the comments section will scare away - even contribute to the failure of this site.
That's some weak tea.
And the crutch has been grabbed by those that tire of developing their case against ideas or presentation. Sarcasm included. The desired tone is debatable, but not at the expense of free speech.
Forget balance - Newshour/ Lehrer already has that gig covered. After allowing the heads to alternate talking points, they always resolve and apologize for having to leave it there (brought to you by ADM).

Quoting kidneystones: claymisher writes...[...]

This is very good. Anonymous hacks hurl spitballs at area experts, leading academics, and professional writers and pundits.

What a business model! People will line up to 'get shit' from claymisher and his ilk.

And maybe Bob and his investors will go broke!

Thank you for providing such clear evidence of the detrimental effect this board is having on this site.

Just kidding, right?

Aw, KS, why so mean? Have I ever been mean to you? Yes, I do want Bob to succeed. But I do miss his articles. You go back to what he wrote right after 9/11 and boy was he on the money.

Quoting Lyle:
...I think you disagree with his politics and don't like him because of it. Unfortunately this is bhtv and the whole point is to have opposing view points having it out with one another. Do you actually object to that? ...

I think that part of the problem is that there is no clear point or mission statement. Commenters merely react. Sometimes we entertain hopes of influencing DV participants - and in turn, they have frequently responded. Most often we argue with each other. Where is the problem? But what has never been made expressly clear by BOB, is the answer to your question. What role would he like us to play? Is his latest plea asking for subservience with self moderation practical or reasonable? No and no. We take whatever is offered and are often quite rewarded. But our gratitude won't fill Bob's coffers. Is that what your hoping for Bob - a sustainable business model? Or something along the lines of a public service? Fess up.

Your statement of "Can we please stop having this person on?" isn't a call to have him banned? Cause that's what it sounds like. Particularly since you don't like his politics or his 'tone'. None of us are being being hypersensitive. You are the one asking for him and others to appear less often or not at all. Myself and others (right, left, or center) aren't asking for people to be run out less often just because we don't like their politics or dislike the person. To ask Bob Wright to kick them off for such a reason is just immature. This isn't about you, it's about people who have something to talk about and letting them do that. It's your problem if some of these people displease you.

Quoting Lyle: Your statement of "Can we please stop having this person on?" isn't a call to have him banned?

Nope.

Cause that's what it sounds like.

Sorry you can't appreciate the distinction.

Quoting Lyle: Your statement of "Can we please stop having this person on?" isn't a call to have him banned?

Technically it isn't. Which is why he'd never concede to the point. I think your overall general point is why have intolerant moderators in the first place? The point of bhtv always seemed to be civilized discussion by opposing points of view. After all, Kaus and Wright seem to be pretty chummy despite being on opposite sides. It disturbs me when certain people are in positions of power and take pride in trying not to see another's POV. Certain leftish dictators come to mind.

Quoting Lyle: None of us are being being hypersensitive. You are the one asking for him and others to appear less often or not at all. Myself and others (right, left, or center) aren't asking for people to be run out less often just because we don't like their politics or dislike the person.

Just to show you that I'm not unique, here are a few examples ... From a TWiB thread:

Quoting eliotc: Boring.... lets pull the plug on these boring retreads.

In reply to the above:

Quoting Titstorm: totally agree and i've been saying this for a while. all of the recurring pairs have said everything they have to offer.

From another TWiB thread:

Quoting Baltimoron: So, W-in-B needs a hardshell economics guy, not like Bill Scher, who can both field the econ blogs and evaluate the number-crunching in the leftie prose.

From yet another TWiB thread:

Quoting Sgt Schultz: Just horribly insulting to the viewership.
Get rid of hash-brownie man.
Sly, knowing, sardonic smiles at the precise moments Conn is crushing his assumptions.
Pathetic.

From a Reza Aslan/Rod Dreher diavlog:

Quoting mumi: Can we get Reza some sort of prize? With a large monetary reward? My hope is to let him retire to a nice sunny destination to GET RID OF THIS CLOWN.

From a diavlog with Jane

Quoting sugarkang: I think your overall general point is why have intolerant moderators in the first place?

An excerpt from elsewhere:

Once again, for the record, and for the benefit of new visitors to the site, AemJeff, TwinSwords, and I have been given moderator privileges for the sole purpose of deleting spam comments. Spam is an ongoing problem on this forum, as with almost any other site that allows user input; I'd say we delete an average of 10-20 spam posts and threads per week, and we've seen peak days where spam is posted at a frequency of an order of magnitude larger. We are acting as assistants to the site administrators in this regard, both so that they can spend their time doing more useful work, and to provide better around-the-clock coverage. Think of us as the janitorial night shift.

As it pertains to this thread, I'll just restate that I don't delete any user comments, nor do I have any say about which diavloggers appear. Think about, sugar. If I had any clout, why would I be publicly asking (in the forums) to have someone replaced? Why wouldn't I just use my secret powers behind the scenes?

bjk, after reading your post, I don't want to complain about people anymore. I'm cured. I think Bob should get in on the econ war right now. It is totally on. Saltwater vs freshwater. Everybody's on a side. Throw in the Post Keynesians and it's total chaos. I mean, they're actually debating fundamental issues in economics, issues that will shape the future of the field, and trillions of dollars of real money right now. So you can't get Larry Summers, but you could probably get DeLong.

Quoting claymisher: bjk, after reading your post, I don't want to complain about people anymore. I'm cured.

Uhhhhh ... thanks? ;^)

I think Bob should get in on the econ war right now. It is totally on. Saltwater vs freshwater. Everybody's on a side. Throw in the Post Keynesians and it's total chaos.

I mean, they're actually debating fundamental issues in economics, issues that will shape the future of the field, and trillions of dollars of real money right now. So you can't get Larry Summers, but you could probably get DeLong.

You're not the only one who's been asking for more econ diavlogs. I wonder how useful they'll be. We have had some good ones in the past, don't get me wrong, but it seems like. given the current political climate, that any fairly broad hour-long conversation geared to the expected level of the audience here is going to end up just producing two opposing cheering sections in the comments. You could pretty much assign people to the teams beforehand based on their answers to the question, New Deal or No Deal?, and I wonder how much the diavlog would change any of that. I dunno. Dismal science blues maybe. Probably worth a shot.

If you had a "donate" button I would periodically kick in $10 or $20

Not only do I defend Bob on this but I co-sign his plea. For me, any post that starts out in the vein of , “what an ass-wipe….”, “yet another appearance by king/queen of stupidity…..”, etc. just completely kills whatever motivation I had in reading that comment. It’s false and pointless to blame the right or the left on this lack of civility because I’ve seen plenty from both sides here. I’m sure when Bob denotes sarcasm he’s talking about the particularly nasty comments under the guise of wit. I’m really not sure what the answer is to this problem except to do what he is doing now - periodically beseeching his audience to self-censor and nip it at the bud.

Quoting ohcomeon: I challenge the whole premise. If you are trying to make this a profitable site, I doubt watering down the comments for "polite society" helps that cause. In fact, if you want to get linked to you should probably promote the comment section arguments as much as you do the divalogers'. Frequently the commentors, even the sarcastic ones, seem better informed and provide more information than the heads. I don't think Bob has bought into

thanks. I guess this is just your little propaganda playground now? you don't even care if the discussion relates to your hobby horse? we can all go read what we want to about this issue without you reprinting entire articles on this board that have no relation to what is being discussed. i respect that you are passionate about this issue, this just seems like the wrong approach to me.

Here is an exchange between me and Dr. Pearl from last Jan. 18 when I heard him speak:

Dear Dr. Pearl,

I attended your talk last night at XXX. First of all, I would like to reiterate my condolences for the loss of your son. The murder of Danny was a despicable act of terror that brought me great sorrow. I also commend you for the wonderful work of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, which I wholeheartedly support.

I disagree strongly, however, with a couple of the points you made last night regarding Jewish identity and the Palestinian conflict.

With respect to Jewish identity, I find your explanation to be disturbingly Israel-centric. You spoke of the early Zionists of your grandfather's generation to whom 2,000 years of "exile" was a "long nightmare." You described their rejection of Diaspora culture (Hebraicization of surnames, for example) as a triumph. But for many of us, Diaspora culture and Diaspora languages like Yiddish, Judeo-Arabic and Djudeo-Espanyol (Ladino), are no nightmare.

The majority of Jews in the world have voted with their feet to reject the Zionist "ingathering" and to remain in the Diaspora. Diaspora Judaism, which Israel has schizophrenically striven to eradicate and honor, is the essence of our identity.

Indeed, it might be said

Very true. I also know that bjkeefe didn't technically call for Conn Carroll to be banned, but the fact that he would like to hear his voice less often, and simply because he doesn't like his politics, is chilling. Perhaps both Bill Scher and Conn Carroll should come on less often (not my actual opinion), and two other opposite side of the aisle people should come on and take their place. I still don't think that will please bjkeefe though.

Quoting Lyle: Very true.

Actually, Lyle, sugarkang's comment to which you responded is not at all true. But if your victim cloak is the most comfy thing you own, by all means, keep wearing it.

Victim cloak? What is that and what are you talking about? How am I a victim, by the way?

Quoting Lyle: Victim cloak? What is that and what are you talking about? How am I a victim, by the way?

Your repeated whining about my harsh remarks directed at people whose opinions you like, your exaggerations of my requests for new faces into calls for "banning," and the two of these exacerbated by your willingness to pat sugarkang on the back for repeating lies which have already been debunked all combine into an example of the faux-outrage hysteria that I call a victim pose. I use cloak because you're metaphorically wrapping yourself in this hysteria. Stepping back a bit, I'll add this: the longer you all go on with this nonsense, the less credible I find your complaints. You had me thinking for a while at the beginning of this, but with your inability to let it go and your attempts to inflate it, I'm now seeing it more as typical rightwing work-the-refs claptrap. Stop clutching your pearls, get up off your fainting couch, and deal with the fact that I don't share your taste in heroes. You might also review the comments of yours that I quoted at the bottom of this post, and ask

Dude... I still don't know what you're talking about. If some right wing freak was calling for Bill Scher's head I'd be saying the same thing, i.e., fuck off, the guy is not of your ilk. Conn Carroll isn't your guy, so the F what. That's not a reason for him to appear less often on BhTv. What about that do you not understand?

Yes... but I'm not asking for her to come on less often. I disagree with her and in that particular bloggingheads, in my opinion, she sucked. Why can't you just say Conn Carroll sucks and leave it at that?

I would probably give $100 to bhtv, but could the funds be held in escrow and returned if some minimum threshold is not met? I know this seems awfully petty, but in times like these I hate to throw money down the toilet. Let me be clear, bhtv is a great boon to American culture. I just don't have money to burn.

Quoting Lyle: Dude... I still don't know what you're talking about. If some right wing freak was calling for Bill Scher's head I'd be saying the same thing, i.e., fuck off, the guy is not of your ilk.

Calm yourself, Lyle. No one is calling for anyone's head. Hyperbole filtered out, the rest of your assertion is factually not true. In none of the examples that referred to Bill in my earlier post did you say anything in response to the people asking that he not be asked back, let alone challenge their right to express their dissatisfaction. Ditto similar calls regarding other liberal diavloggers.

Conn Carroll isn't your guy, so the F what. That's not a reason for him to appear less often on BhTv. What about that do you not understand?

"So the F what," indeed. I don't think Conn does a good diavlog. I'd like to see someone better. I am more than happy that it be another conservative. What about that do you not understand? It's clear this isn't going anywhere. You think I should not say anything when I'm unhappy. I disagree, and to the extent that your last few posts have done anything, they've only hardened my resolve. Last word's all yours. [Added] Well, as

I see you've edited your post since I responded to it. Classy. However, here are my responses to your updates.

Quoting Lyle: I also know that bjkeefe didn't technically call for Conn Carroll to be banned, ...

Thanks for admitting this, finally. Progress!

Quoting Lyle: ... but the fact that he would like to hear his voice less often, and simply because he doesn't like his politics, is chilling.

I have said numerous times that it's not the political affiliation, that I am eager to hear from people with different points of view, and in particular for TWiB, that all I want is a different conservative. I gave William Beutler as an example in an earlier post in this thread.

Perhaps both Bill Scher and Conn Carroll should come on less often (not my actual opinion), and two other opposite side of the aisle people should come on and take their place. I still don't think that will please bjkeefe though.

You're wrong about that, too. From the same post:

Quoting bjkeefe: I have also suggested that both Bill and Conn be part of a rotation; i.e., that TWiB be regularly hosted by a larger set of diavloggers, both right and left.

Regarding the BB/MM thread ... Hate to say I told you so, but ...

Quoting bjkeefe: You're not the only one who's been asking for more econ diavlogs. I wonder how useful they'll be. We have had some good ones in the past, don't get me wrong, but it seems like. given the current political climate, that any fairly broad hour-long conversation geared to the expected level of the audience here is going to end up just producing two opposing cheering sections in the comments. You could pretty much assign people to the teams beforehand based on their answers to the question, New Deal or No Deal?, and I wonder how much the diavlog would change any of that.

I'm doing my part, FYI... A while ago, I quit responding to the wingnut spew, since it is impossible for me to show respect for angry, whiney victims who merely emulate their angry, ignorant, blowhard heroes.
The assertions and subsequent crying by these posters is so cookie-cutter that I find any exchange to be extremely boring, predictable, and useless. Hats off to BJ and others for patiently responding to those who constantly dish out anger, hate, and misinformation, (I can tell you don't know who you are) then turn into faux-victims when they get anything but agreement.
Yes, the lefty tree huggers are just as bad, but those that push from the right seem to forget that their party has been, and will continue to be, the party of the ruling, power and money class, and the idea that they champion the Joe the worker is the biggest lie in politics today IMHO (hence me shutting up). I may have class :^), but I am from the working class, and if it was up to the Republican global corporate crowd, there would be no middle class, so I take this very personally, too much for this forum, which is why I am done.
Good luck, and godspeed. (I still watch BHTV, BTW)

Quoting handle: [...]

I miss your contributions to the forums, handle. Don't be a stranger.

The problem, bjkeefe, is that you hardly appreciate anybody you disagree with. You have something bad to say about every conservative/libertarian who posts on bloggingheads. Again, if Conn Carroll isn't acceptable to you Jane Hamsher and Bill Scher have got to come on less often too. I don't think any of them should stop coming on or come on less often. It's all good in my opinion, even if I think they are in abomination, e.g. Jane Hamsher. ... and yes, thank God the powers at be aren't heeding your advice.

Quoting Lyle: The problem, bjkeefe, is that you hardly appreciate anybody you disagree with. You have something bad to say about every conservative/libertarian who posts on bloggingheads.

Untrue. As I've already said a couple of times, I like when William Beutler does TWiB. I have also had generally good things to say about other conservative and/or libertarian 'heads, e.g., Eli Lake, John McWhorter, Brink Lindsey, Will Wilkinson, Kerry Howley, Andrew Bacevich, Ross Douthat, Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Drezner, Francis Fukuyama, Duff McDonald, Daniel Larison, Eric Posner, Reihan Salam, Julian Sanchez, and Eugene Volokh. I've said a few nice things about Jim Pinkerton and Mickey Kaus, as well, though not so much lately. I even used to say good things about Conn Carroll, back before he became a Heritage hack.

Again, if Conn Carroll isn't exceptable to you Jane Hamsher and Bill Scher have got to come on less often too.

Sounds like you're advocating banning to me! I should also correct you. To me, Conn Carroll is "exceptable." He is, however, not acceptable. ;^)

I don't think any of them should stop coming on or come on less often. It's all good in my opinion, even if I think they are in abomination, e.g. Jane Hamsher.

We'll remain in disagreement on this one. I see no reason to stand quiet when diavloggers who I think don't have

Nope, the facts about you are accurate: you dislike conservatives. ... and nowhere have I said or inferred that you should be banned. That's just ludicrous.

Quoting Lyle: Nope, the facts about you are accurate: you dislike conservatives.

That's not entirely true. I do dislike most conservative stances on most issues, and there are conservative whom I dislike completely. But I insist that I want to hear what the better ones have to say.

... and nowhere have I said or inferred that you should be banned. That's just ludicrous.

First, I didn't say you wanted me banned, I said it sounded like you were calling for Bill and Jane to be banned. Second, it was a joke. What part of an exclamation point and a winkie do you not understand? All right, Lyle. I've reached the conclusion that the more I try to reason with you, the more it encourages you to whimper. Anything further you post in this thread will be ignored or mocked only. I'm tired of wiping your nose for you. You're a big boy. Go get your own hankie.

Quoting bjkeefe: "So the F what," indeed. I don't think Conn does a good diavlog. I'd like to see someone better. I am more than happy that it be another conservative. What about that do you not understand?

The problem is that you're a mod. If you were just any other troller, nobody would really care. That is also why I decided to stop replying to most of your posts because you let things get personal. (you know, ad hominem)

Quoting sugarkang: The problem is that you're a mod. If you're just any other troller, nobody would really care.

I'm sure Brendan is getting tired of repeating it, so I'll say it this time. "Moderator" status here has no editorial implication on this forum, beyond enabling the purely mechanical task of deleting commercial spam.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm sure Brendan is getting tired of repeating it, so I'll say it this time. "Moderator" status here has no editorial implication on this forum, beyond enabling the purely mechanical task of deleting commercial spam.

Fair enough.

Quoting sugarkang: That is also why I decided to stop replying to most of your posts because you let things get personal. (you know, ad hominem)

Nah. To use your favorite formulation, it's because you kept getting destroyed. Now you're reduced to sniveling in the corner and directing insults at me without having the guts to mention my name. When you're not repeating lies about me you know not to be true, I mean.

Quoting bjkeefe: Nah. To use your favorite formulation, it's because you kept getting destroyed. Now you're reduced to sniveling in the corner and directing insults at me without having the guts to mention my name.

When you're not repeating lies about me you know not to be true, I mean.

Why would I not have the guts to mention you by name? Am I scared of you? How old are you? You made personal attacks without responding substantively so I stopped replying to you. You mentioned not giving a shit about my opinion or whether I agreed with you or not (even when I said I agreed with you). Ironically, you continued to reply to my posts, line by line, in other threads. I continued to ignore your comments until recently. I understand that people can sometimes get frustrated during argument and degenerate into personal attacks. I thought that you were a mod in the traditional sense, and therefore I held you to a higher standard. I've modded forums myself in the past and declined to mod other forums, just knowing what a pain in the ass it can truly be. AemJeff said that you are just a spam filter. I didn't know that, so I retract my

Quoting sugarkang: [...]

All right, I'll take your words at face value, rather than giving into the temptation to rebut, and see how they play out. Generally, I like this board for the multiplicity of views, and like you, I enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Whether you believe it or not, I do not make a habit of personally attacking people just because I disagree with them. In your case, I was responding to provocation, whether you intended it or not. It's also possible you caught a little stray crabbiness due to circumstances not related to you, and for that, I apologize.

Quoting bjkeefe: Suit yourself.

For the record, however: I said one of your statements was stupid, which it was, and pointed out why. I said another (which was phrased as a question) was a straw man argument, which it was, and refused therefore to dignify it with a response. This is not what ad hominem means.

That's a convenient technicality isn't it? I didn't call you stupid. Just everything that comes out of your mouth.

You'd know a lot more about the dynamics of this board and the people who have been on it, and maybe you'd realize how irritating your new-to-scene pronouncements about it are.

Oh, sorry, you were saying?

This isn't ad hominem? Essentially calling me a noob and therefore my opinions have no merit.

Oddly enough, I feel no great sense of loss.

And yet you continued to reply to all of my posts on this thread and others.

I have no respect for people who insist on doing things, or who insist on explaining their reasons for doing things, by starting with an identification of their ideological affiliation.

I know. You'd shoot them in the face. The quickest way is the best way. ..
I didn't respond to this earlier because I didn't feel it was worth

Quoting sugarkang: I know. You'd shoot them in the face. The quickest way is the best way.

[...]

You also said that Jonathan Haidt pisses you off. IMO, he is a man who is truly calling for the supreme olive branch. He pisses you off? People don't throw around terms like "liberal fascism" for nothing.

I think someone else is using your account, sugar. Better go delete this:

Quoting sugarkang: I have always tried to keep my side of the discourse respectful. If I was disrespectful in some way, I apologize. I have tried to watch my remarks on this board ...

I explicity called for Bill and Jane to NOT be banned or brought on less often. Do you not know how to read? Why do you need to mock me? Have I mocked you? This site isn't about mocking people, it's about discussing or arguing with them in a civil way. Is that really too difficult for you? Do you have to make things personal? I disagree with you, as do the powers that be. Get over it.

Quoting Lyle: I explicity called for Bill and Jane to NOT be banned or brought on less often. Do you not know how to read?

I am going to repeat a fragment of the post you just replied to and then let you reflect on the bolded part what you just said.

Quoting bjkeefe: Second, it was a joke. What part of an exclamation point and a winkie do you not understand?

Quoting bjkeefe: I think someone else is using your account, sugar. Better go delete this:

Those posts should have been reversed.
I should have ended on a conciliatory note.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think someone else is using your account, sugar. Better go delete this:

Those posts should have been reversed.
I should have ended on a conciliatory note. In my defense however, I don't think I've been all that nasty to you until this post. I was trying to make the point that I could've been a dick the whole time. So maybe you could just forgive the last post.

Quoting sugarkang: Those posts should have been reversed.
I should have ended on a conciliatory note.

In my defense however, I don't think I've been all that nasty to you until this post. I was trying to make the point that I could've been a dick the whole time. So maybe you could just forgive the last post.

Sounds good to me. And I pledge a fresh start myself.

LOL! The depth with which the Google reads these threads never fails to amaze me. Check out the ad that appeared right after I posted my last comment:

Quoting bjkeefe:
I said it sounded like you were calling for Bill and Jane to be banned.

All right, Lyle. I've reached the conclusion that the more I try to reason with you, the more it encourages you to whimper. Anything further you post in this thread will be ignored or mocked only. I'm tired of wiping your nose for you. You're a big boy. Go get your own hankie.

You actually meant the bold text. So you didn't comprehend what I wrote. The last paragraph is horrendous. Hopefully Bob Wright reads it and cries.

Quoting Lyle: You actually meant the bold text.

No, I actually meant I was kidding.

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not sure if he [Bob Somerby] changed or if I changed, but every time I've followed a link to his site in the past year or so, I've been discouraged by what feels like an excess of carping for the sake of carping, and bitterness overwhelming his erstwhile sense of humor.

Appears I'm not the only one who feels this way. Some good zingers in the comments, too, including a couple from Bérubé.