Here I am, a 22 year old male in a college town, watching a diavlog about UN related matters instead of trying to get a girl to go home with me from a bar. Yeah, that about the highest praise I can give.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Here I am, a 22 year old male in a college town, watching a diavlog about UN related matters instead of trying to get a girl to go home with me from a bar.

Yeah, that about the highest praise I can give.

Careful. You're on the precipice of a permanent condition.

I agree with Brendan. I don't like that these types of resolutions are proposed (and signed on to by so many states) regardless if they are enforceable or not. These are the types of things that anti-UN (anti-world governance, whatever) people can point to when making their case to people that are unfamiliar with the inner workings of the UN and how much weight stuff like this carries.

Quoting bjkeefe: Careful. You're on the precipice of a permanent condition.

..and here I was thinking you hadn't read that thread because you hadn't responded to it. I have to learn that its hard to slip anything past Brendan, because the amazing bjkeefe sees all, and knows all. On the general issue of bhtv affecting one's sex life; I plead the Fifth.

About the Burma section, wouldn't opening Burma to American extraction business and integrating Burma into the world market improve human rights issues there? I mean, most human rights issues come about from one group trying to take the resources of another group. You would think making the overall pie larger for everyone over there would help ease in-fighting. Also, I would think the gov't would behave a little better over there if perhaps business deals had certain human rights stipulations. I dunno, just some random thoughts I had as I was watching the Diavlog, this is not something I know a whole lot about. Finally, It would be nice if M&M did a diavlog about the actual structure of the UN. How does the IMF,IPCC and general assembly relate to each other? What are the major counsels in the UN. How does the UN interact with various types of NGO's? etc,etc,etc.

I applaud Mark Leon Goldberg and Matthew Lee for having more intellectual integrity than Jonathan Chait for actually trying to figure out what realism is. Both Lee and Goldberg should lead a coup against Chait, Foer, and Peretz at TNR!

A career in Washington, DC is probably not for you!

I agree as well. It doesn't matter whether or not a law would come to fruition; it matters that large parts of the world believe this to be a lawful thing to do. ... and yes good on Lou Dobbs and Johann Hari to bring it up. France is also wrong, in my opinion, in preventing Muslim girls and women from wearing their headdress in schools (banishing it from witnesses in a court room is probably okay though). Muslims should be allowed to express their faith in public through religious or cultural dress. No beheadings or wife beatings of course.

Quoting Lyle: I agree as well. It doesn't matter whether or not a law would come to fruition; it matters that large parts of the world believe this to be a lawful thing to do.

... and yes good on Lou Dobbs and Johann Hari to bring it up.

I'd go along with "good on Lou Dobbs to bring it up," but based on a clip I saw of him discussing it, I think the way he did it did more harm than good. Once he started talking about this in his familiar apocalyptic -- even paranoid -- way, he had the effect of causing just about every liberal to say, "Meh. More black helicopter/Trilateral Commission/looming world government tinfoil-hattery. If Lou Dobbs is shrieking about it, it must be a non-issue." If you care about an issue, it's unfortunate to have someone whose caricature so closely matches his actual identity as a prominent spokesman.

France is also wrong, in my opinion, in preventing Muslim girls and women from wearing their headdress in schools (banishing it from witnesses in a court room is probably okay though). Muslims should be allowed to express their faith in public through

I disagree with you on Dobbs. Dobbs is not speaking to you or progressives, he's speaking to non-progressives. The UN scares them on a number of levels and he is just letting them know about the current shenanigans going down in New York. He also brought in Christopher Hitchens (where they both also bad mouthed religious authoritarianism of all stripes), which easily made Dobb's spiel on the matter credible. By the way, that's one Diavlog I'd love to see... Goldberg vs. Hitchens. Or really anybody who won't talk totally nice about the institution vs. Goldberg. I think Goldberg is a progressive who doesn't understand the Lou Dobbs of the world or really the average American for that matter. Non-democratic, culturally backwards Arab Muslims telling us what we can or cannot say, kind of pisses us off.

Quoting Lyle: I disagree with you on Dobbs. Dobbs is not speaking to you or progressives, he's speaking to non-progressives.

Be that as it may, I still say it hurts our overall cause of protecting free speech. If you look at either of the threads on this issue on this site, or Mark's post on the matter, you see how immediately dismissive the reaction from lefties was. It's not just a matter of him only speaking to a slice of the population, it's that he actively alienates another. This is an issue that ought not break along partisan lines, since it seems to me that liberals and conservatives both (claim to) value free speech. Dobbs's way of getting involved is counterproductive, just as some airhead Hollywood person speaking incoherently on some other issue I care about makes me cringe. In both cases, you're tossing away the support of half the population on something the overwhelming majority of the population actually agrees upon.

The UN scares them on a number of levels and he is just letting them know about the current shenanigans going down in New York.

Yeah, well, playing to that fear, which most people find

I disagree still. There's no proper way of discussing the issue. People talk about it in different ways and should be allowed to say their piece. I don't see how Lou Dobbs harms the conversation at all. He's angry at what has gone on and he's right to pooh-pooh it in his own way. It's other peoples' problem, if they don't like how he puts it to them. The progressive way of conversing simply isn't the "right" way or the only way of speaking, or addressing an issue. You guys, again, do not bring in non-progressives with your progressive speak. Non-progressives respect other forms and ways of communicating, and Lou Dobbs and others speak to them and not against them, which is what progressives tend to do. I think you should embrace Lou Dobbs and Christopher Hitchens (well with regards to Hitchens... at least the farther out lefties as you said) as fellow travelers on this issue. Matthew Lee (by far one of the more genuine people on BHtv, I think) is left-of-center and not anti-UN; he's only critical of it. He's a bit of a contrarian like Hitchens, which is nice, but I think it'd be more interesting to see

Quoting Lyle: I disagree still. There's no proper way of discussing the issue. People talk about it in different ways and should be allowed to say their piece.

Completely agreed. However, not for the first time, I'll ask that right-wingers such as yourself work a little harder to distinguish between my saying someone is not worth listening to, which I often say, and saying that someone should be prevented from speaking, which I never do.

I don't see how Lou Dobbs harms the conversation at all. He's angry at what has gone on and he's right to pooh-pooh it in his own way. It's other peoples' problem, if they don't like how he puts it to them.

You're entitled to your view of him, but I think you're being obtuse not to acknowledge how many people he flat-out alienates, and consequently, how this can harm building support on an issue you care about. If you care about the issue, then it is not just "other people's problem;" it's also yours. Libtards may or may not be wrong to dismiss Dobbs, but there's no getting around the fact that they do.

The progressive way of conversing simply isn't the "right" way or the

... about Dobbs. Progressive voices alienate millions of people as well. So what you think alienates people, is the same reason thousands of other people listen to him and guys like him. I'd argue you have a narrow minded view of him, just like all the people (naive Goldberg included) who think he's an obnoxious right-wing jackass. If Hitchens will go on his show, he can't be that bad. Progressives have their own problem alienating people as well, by calling too many people racists and bigots or wingnuts... which Dobbs is oft labled by progressive immigration types. As soon as people throw out these terms, I in turn, think them ignorant, stupid, or both... not to mention down right mean and immature. People like me hate it when progressives fear monger and use scare tactics. You see, fear mongering and scare tactics (global warming alarmism may be the best example), works both ways. I'm also not right-wing, I'm whatever is to the right of progressives (centrist, libertarian, right-of-center... just not a progressive).

Quoting Lyle: ... about Dobbs. Progressive voices alienate millions of people as well. So what you think alienates people, is the same reason thousands of other people listen to him and guys like him.

Granted.

I'd argue you have a narrow minded view of him, just like all the people (naive Goldberg included) who think he's an obnoxious right-wing jackass.

Will you also say the same about yourself, concerning all those progressive voices that you can't stand? This proves nothing, though:

If Hitchens will go on his show, he can't be that bad.

Hitch will go on any show. He likes to mix it up and he likes to keep himself in the spotlight.

Progressives have their own problem alienating people as well, by calling too many people racists and bigots or wingnuts... which Dobbs is oft labled by progressive immigration types. As soon as people throw out these terms, I in turn, think them ignorant, stupid, or both... not to mention down right mean and immature. Hate progressive fear mongering and scare tactics.

You see, fear mongering and scare tactics (global warming alarmism may be the best example), work both ways.

I repeat my question from above.

Progressives have their own problem alienating people as well, by calling too many people racists and bigots or wingnuts... which Dobbs is oft labled by progressive immigration types.

The guy made a career out of attacking and making life miserable for Mexican immigrants and by pandering to a hardcore base of deranged racists. That doesn't make him personally a racist and it doesn't make everyone who watches his program a bigot, but it pretty much reduces him to an opportunistic sleezebag, much in the same way that Jim Kramer is, i.e., a huckster who will do and say almost anything to boost his ratings.

About progressives... no I won't say it because I listen to them and read them all the time. Better to listen to them and engage them, rather than yell and scream at them. I'm not perfect though and sometimes, I do yell and scream at them (Jane Hamsher infuriates me... mainly cause I don't think she's a particularly good human being; the way she talks down to people says a lot about herself)... but I would never keep them out of a debate because of who they are no matter how awful I think their views are. Christopher Hitchens doesn't go on all shows. I don't think he ever goes on Fox. He may have done it a while ago, but he hasn't done so in a while. Any host that won't let him talk, he'll sill stop going on the show. So shows like O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, and Chris Matthews... he either won't go on or he's stopped going on.

I think you mean to say illegal Mexican immigrants. I'm pretty sure Dobbs has nothing against legal Mexican immigrants. It's also the adult, illegal immigrant's fault they're in a "miserable situation" if that's what they find themselves in in the United States. The simple thing to have done would be to not have entered the country illegally. Once they did that, all consequences that come from that are on them. They know what can happen to them. They know they can be separated from their children. They know they won't be insured in case they fall on their head and become an invalid, so on and so forth. It's sad, very sad... but such is the risk of entering a country undocumented and against that country's laws.

Quoting Lyle: [...]

Noted. Nothing to add.

The guy made a career out of attacking and making life miserable for Mexican immigrants and by pandering to a hardcore base of deranged racists.

Lou Dobbs has been branded a racist by those unwilling to accept that there is a difference between legal (those who follow the rules) and illegal (those who break the law and cut in line) immigration. Pointing out the problems caused by 20 million illegals who came here AFTER the immigration reform act of the 1980's granted existing illegals immunity but also promised to secure the borders are not racists per se and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If you really want to see hate, look at how Mexico treats illegals.
Pro-illegal types are happy to shout racism but look the other way as crime rates soar (80% of outstanding murder warrants in Los Angeles are for illegals)and public services are strained to the max (prisons, law enforcement, social services). Throwing money at them to remove tattoos is a laughable answer.

Hear, hear... Harkin.

The thing about Lou Dobbs, is that he is a shock jockey, you should not expect nuanced arguments from him. I do not watch him much, as I too find his style somewhat crude, that being said, I still find him leagues above partisan hacks like Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity. As for the Immigration issue(s), I for the most part do not have a strong opinion. However, I will say that we do need a merit system to determine which immigrants are the ones this country will benefit from taking in that is much more aligned with Canada's system. It's rather moronic we are rejecting Visa applications for immigrants that are coming here for Med school. That's exactly the type of person we should be taking in! One of the biggest reasons this country has thrived as much as it has, is that historically, we have tended to steal the best and the brightest from the rest of the world.

Star: the real dream is to find the girl who will go home with you AND watch bloggingheads too (maybe the next morning.)

Quoting bjkeefe: Based on my upbringing as an American, I agree. It seems to be going overboard, it seems unfair, and even in an coldly pragmatic sense of trying to diminish the dominance of religion, it seems counterproductive. Banning things has a way of making them more attractive to some, and it also tends to push those who like whatever is being banned to become more extreme.

To the extent that I understand France's basic precepts, though, I can sort of see it. I remember reading some fairly plausible defenses of the policy, back when this was front page news, but I've forgotten the details of the arguments. It'd be good to hear from Francoamerican on this one.

As the resident pseudo-froggie I am glad to oblige you bjkeefe. The issue is now moribund if not dead, so I shall be brief. For reasons that ultimately go back to the French Revolution (remember the monarchy was by "divine right" and France was then "la fille ainée de l'Eglise") the French believe that religion is a purely private matter and must be kept out of the public realm, especially out of the public schools, where affirmations of religious belief would only

What about double standards? I seem to recall that one criticism on the Muslim head coverings issue was that Christian children were allowed to wear crosses and Jewish children were allowed to wear head coverings. True?

Quoting Wonderment: What about double standards? I seem to recall that one criticism on the Muslim head coverings issue was that Christian children were allowed to wear crosses and Jewish children were allowed to wear head coverings. True?

Yes, there was some talk about double standards at the time of the headscarf idiocy, but as far as I know this isn't an important or widespread problem, because Catholics who insist on flaunting crosses or Jews who insist on flaunting head gear tend to attend religious schools.

Not allowing Muslims girls to wear their thing is just one less liberty for Muslims in France. Even though the French state may be hyper secular, it exists in a world where most people are still religious... like in almost all of its former colonial possessions, where so many of its immigrants come from today. Open up your cold heart France and let freedom ring!!!

Quoting Lyle: Not allowing Muslims girls to wear their thing is just one less liberty for Muslims in France. Even though the French state may be hyper secular, it exists in a world where most people are still religious... like in almost all of its former colonial possessions, where so many of its immigrants come from today.

Open up your cold heart France and let freedom ring!!!

You are free to come to France to preach your childish conception of liberty, if you want Lyle. But I am fairly certain you will be simply laughed at, as you deserve.

Quoting Francoamerican: As the resident pseudo-froggie I am glad to oblige you bjkeefe. [...]

Thanks for weighing in. Your quick summary calls to mind what I read earlier on the matter. Follow-up question: You say this issue "is now moribund if not dead." Is it your sense that back when it was front page news that it was really the product of a relatively few loud voices, combined with the media love for controversy, no matter how contrived? My own sense is that there have to be many, many Muslim girls and young women who are grateful for this rule, but who dared not, or cared not, to speak up in its defense.

Freedom of religion is childish? Muslims are children who need to be reared by mother France? The law banning headscarves is intolerant and sufficates liberty.

That may or may not be true. The last time I was in Europe, in the Netherlands and Belgium, Muslim girls were wearing beautiful head coverings and seemed to be proud of it. I think you're probably right though, but for a lot of Muslims girls it is a way to say F you Europe, I'm blanking Muslim, deal with it.

Quoting Lyle: That may or may not be true. The last time I was in Europe, in the Netherlands and Belgium, Muslim girls were wearing beautiful head coverings and seemed to be proud of it.

Sure, and fine. But two things. First, as I understand it, the regulation applies only to what students may wear to school; i.e., it is not a universal prohibition. Second, that you saw some people doing something says nothing about how other people feel.

I think you're probably right though, but for a lot of Muslims girls it is a way to say F you Europe, I'm blanking Muslim, deal with it.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a worry I share with you, that banning something causes an undesirable reaction and a movement by some toward the opposite extreme. And to reiterate, I personally do not agree with the ban. All I said was that the French position was plausible, given their slightly different (from the US's) founding principles.

Quoting bjkeefe: Follow-up question: You say this issue "is now moribund if not dead." Is it your sense that back when it was front page news that it was really the product of a relatively few loud voices, combined with the media love for controversy, no matter how contrived?.

Absolutely. And French intellectuals or would-be intellectuals love nothing more than a good brawl.

Quoting bjkeefe: My own sense is that there have to be many, many Muslim girls and young women who are grateful for this rule, but who dared not, or cared not, to speak up in its defense.

This is my sense too. I teach a few classes (English and American culture to first and second year university students) in which there is always a contingent of Muslim girls and boys. Believe me, the girls have NO desire to wear headscarves, and the boys think the whole idea pretty silly...with an occasional exception. The fact of the matter is that the headscarf is imposed on Muslim women by MEN.

Quoting Francoamerican: Absolutely. And French intellectuals or would-be intellectuals love nothing more than a good brawl.

This is my sense too. I teach a few classes (English and American culture to first and second year university students) in which there is always a contingent of Muslim girls and boys. Believe me, the girls have NO desire to wear headscarves, and the boys think the whole idea pretty silly...with an occasional exception. The fact of the matter is that the headscarf is imposed on Muslim women by MEN.

Thanks for the follow-up. And thanks also for your last sentence -- something which I agree with as a general if not unanimous principle, and which needs to be said over and over.

I understand France's rational, but it still doesn't make it right. ... and the Muslims girls in Holland and Belgium were students, either going to school or going home from school. Germany had a court decision on this matter as well, because certain States passed similar laws prohibiting the head scarve in certain places. Forgot what happened. On a personal note, I abhor the head scarve even if beautiful and covering a beautiful head. It's just too patriarchal for my tastes. Hopefully Western women don't go multicultural and start covering themselves up too. If they want to however, a la the Amish, more power to them.

I understand modesty. Thanks to the tramp stamp/butt crack/thong trend from a few years ago, I'm now for it. But when I see this walking down the street ... ... it's pretty frightening. So is this:

I fail to see this as anything other than abuse. Even assuming the garment was donned by a willing woman, the culture that convinced her that abject shame in what and who she is is contemptible.

I agree with you Jeff... but they should be allowed to wear that if they want to. Think of them as Amish Arabs.

Pat Condell (humorously) weighs in on the religion issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzTA_D5NpU

Love Pat Condell. Up yours comedy, directed at radical Islamists and their Western enablers (religion in general really, but the Green Flag of Islam seems to get his attention the most). Good times.