with friends like these http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/249...2:30&out=12:35

You guys are a freakin' LAFF RIOT!!! (& smart to boot, but don't let it go to your heads, all 4 of 'em. FWIW 27 is 3 cubed. Very symetrically mystical. Go tell Oprah, pronto.) Happy New Year!!

I'm fascinated that neither Bob nor Mickey could come up with the name of Jayson Blair, despite both being journalists. I wonder what kind of cocktail party psychology spin we can put on that? Speaking of derangement, the only thing that could have made this diavlog better would have been more time devoted to Mickey's fears. I do like to hear conspiracy theorists wind themselves up. Now, that's entertainment.

Happy New Year everyone! I love all of you.

Quoting Lyle: Happy New Year everyone! I love all of you.

We love you too, Lyle!

I always wondered who the famed jazz pianist Horace Silver was referring to in his composition "In Pursuit Of the 27th Man." Now I know, it's Robert Wright. John

I am delighted to see Bob coming around to accepting the moral if not necessarily pragmatic viability of the one-state option for Palestine-Israel. I agree that 2-state is in a vegetative coma. World diplomacy, however, is still in denial about the prognosis. A shift in thinking by people like Bob who like Israel and Israelis would go a long way toward helping the parties accept the inevitable death of two-state. Bob is also right, in my opinion, that a nonviolent movement for citizenship for Palestinians would win the world's sympathy. Palestinians already have the world's sympathy outside of the USA, so 90% of the one-state paradigm shift is already done. Bob's concern -- that once one-state became a serious Palestinian movement Israel would offer generous terms for two states -- seems mistaken to me. When the 1-state momentum started in earnest it would -- like the struggle against Apartheid in SA -- be impossible to stop. The huge challenge is to somehow frame one-state so that it is palatable to Israelis. The odds are against that happening without a backslide into immense violence, but the odds against the two-state solution succeeding are fast approaching zero.

I predict tea party protesters will be out in force as soon as the weather warms this spring. The national debt will be another $trillion higher by June, 2010 and the people who want their country back will be increasingly fed up and hyper concerned. My suggestion is we add the occupation of a local federal facility to the activities at the rally. Don't end the occupation until the feds agree to balance the budget.

Quoting bkjazfan: I always wondered who the famed jazz pianist Horace Silver was referring to in his composition "In Pursuit Of the 27th Man." Now I know, it's Robert Wright.

John

Well then, here's this for you John, and for the books of Bob Wright... inspired I guess, by his former father... jeebus: Morally directed by whom we ask?

My suggestion is we add the occupation of a local federal facility to the activities at the rally. Don't end the occupation until the feds agree to balance the budget.

Yes! Take Alcatraz. Demand the Feds give it to the Confederacy as reparations for your Civil War losses.

Yes. BhTV commenters can also come up with a wish list. Here is my number one wish. Happy New Year!

Mickey's "cheesy" ode to Soupy Sales was pretty funny. Bob's is not exactly a dictatorship, but rather a Duchy. To what address do I send Bob Wright a wedge of Limburger. Poor Fraser appeared to have been jostled from a cozy slumber. Who knew? Choosy dogs choose Post Shredded Wheat.

The Moral Animal
The Evolution of Dog

The underwear bomber incident has been a large wake up call for me. The idea of government cover ups and media complicity regarding terrorism had always struck me as a possibility in the past, but I never really wanted to entertain the idea for very long. I can no longer allow myself to be so naive. Anybody else who has been paying attention should have the same realization. Why has there been a complete media black out regarding the two other men arrested that day? Why are we expected to ignore eye witnesses who claim to have seen the Nigerian man escorted to the gate by a "rich looking" Indian man? Google Kurt Haskell if you are not already familiar with this information. Does anybody else feel lost in the haze of 1984?

Mr. Wright. Nicely done! Happy New Year.

Quoting BlueberrySky: The underwear bomber incident has been a large wake up call for me. The idea of government cover ups and media complicity regarding terrorism had always struck me as a possibility in the past, but I never really wanted to entertain the idea for very long. I can no longer allow myself to be so naive. Anybody else who has been paying attention should have the same realization.

Why has there been a complete media black out regarding the two other men arrested that day? Why are we expected to ignore eye witnesses who claim to have seen the Nigerian man escorted to the gate by a "rich looking" Indian man? Google Kurt Haskell if you are not already familiar with this information.

Does anybody else feel lost in the haze of 1984?

I heard a ten minute piece, including an interview with an eyewitness, a former IRS lawyer, regarding the "well-dressed Indian man" on NPR, yesterday. You've obviously heard something somewhere. That's quite the "complete media blackout." I'm mostly seeing the haze in near freezing rain in almost-but-not-quite 2010.

I can't think of anything that stimulated my thinking in this back-and-forth. I also was underwhelmed by these two thinkers who usually try to be insightful.
Here a couple of thoughts: 1. I don't know much about foreign policy but just from a game theoretic perspective (which should appeal to Bob) a world with no nukes seems to be much more unstable than a world where everyone has it. The problem is that the genie is out of the box now, we do know how to build nuclear weapons, it's feasible. We can't unlearn. So in a world with no nukes, everyone would constantly be on edge, uncertain of whether the other guy is building one, has built one, who knows. While if everyone has nukes then everyone knows that everyone knows etc...As we get technologically more advanced it will be hard to prevent such a situation: suppose we successfully attain a nuke-free world, oops then we have to think about biological ones etc...heck people were worried about peaceful advances such as an accelerator in Switzerland potentially blowing up everyone. In short, I don't know how anybody can have strong opinions about this

This must be what Kaus was talking about. From The Economist a few weeks ago: "Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races." But a lot of this has been known for years, and we have a black-white President and maybe the best race relations we've ever had. At least the last 20 years have been better than the previous 20 years.

Quoting consider: This must be what Kaus was talking about. From The Economist a few weeks ago:

"Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races."

But a lot of this has been known for years, and we have a black-white President and maybe the best race relations we've ever had. At least the last 20 years have been better than the previous 20 years.

Why would you cite something like that so vaguely, and without a link? Added: here's a link:
http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=14742737

Quoting Unit: I can't think of anything that stimulated my thinking in this back-and-forth. I also was underwhelmed by these two thinkers who usually try to be insightful.

I kind of agree. BHTV can be pretty tame. I watched some of the Eli/Spencer talk yesterday. Eli starts off by congratulating Spencer on besting Pat Buchanan in their mini debate on TV. When I watch the clip, not only did I think PJB made his points better, I thought their exchange was a lot more lively and interesting than what is heard on this channel. The underpants guy should be interrogate fully and tried by the military. BHTV hardly talks about the issue. On your manufacturing point I worry that US manufactures are being locked out of the access to raw materials in the world. Also, how much of the trade imbalance money is coming back into this country in the form of foreign purchases of property and other hard assets? If China is using the money Americans pay for the stuff in Walmart to buy American office towers and shopping centers, that is not good.

Quoting Wonderment: Yes! Take Alcatraz.

Good analogy. I like it! Just like the first got here Americans have their reservation lands, the decendants of the 2nd wave of Americans, the ones who arrived in the country between 1600 and 1940, should also be entitled to sections of the country where they retain their sovereignty.

Quoting AemJeff: Why would you cite something like that so vaguely, and without a link?

Added: here's a link:
http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=14742737

From the above:

The trouble is, the resequencing data will reveal much more about human evolutionary history and ethnic differences than they will about disease genes. Once enough DNA is analysed around the world, science will have a panoramic view of human genetic variation across races, ethnicities and regions. We will start reconstructing a detailed family tree that links all living humans, discovering many surprises about mis-attributed paternity and covert mating between classes, castes, regions and ethnicities.

This guy is well credentialed (assuming the Wikipedia article for the evolutionary psychologist named Geoffrey Miller refers to the author), but the above quote seems crafted to push a certain type of individual's buttons. Maybe I'm reading it too closely.

Quoting Unit: ...a world with no nukes seems to be much more unstable than a world where everyone has it. The problem is that the genie is out of the box now, we do know how to build nuclear weapons, it's feasible. We can't unlearn. So in a world with no nukes, everyone would constantly be on edge, uncertain of whether the other guy is building one, has built one, who knows. While if everyone has nukes then everyone knows that everyone knows etc...

We are in a difficult situation. A smuggled weapon can be deployed by nihilists to cripple one nation's economy, and the source of that weapon can remain a mystery. This would be true if we lived in a world with no nukes, as you point out, but it would also be true in a world where everyone has nukes. So it really doesn't help that "everyone knows that everyone knows etc..." This is like the knickerbomber situation. As soon as something goes wrong, people will drop their concerns for privacy in favor of transparency. When rogue nukes are used, some form of world government will follow.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Good analogy. I like it! Just like the first got here Americans have their reservation lands, the decendants of the 2nd wave of Americans, the ones who arrived in the country between 1600 and 1940, should also be entitled to sections of the country where they retain their sovereignty.

Cool! I can start a casino!

Bob and Mickey both predict the ship of state will be relatively stable by election time 2010. They say the democrats will retain their majorities in the Congress. What I don't follow is how are the finances of the country going to be improved enough for this to happen? Is the Congress going to cut off extended unemployment benefits in 2010? I doubt it. I think European style permanent unemployment benefits are the next entitlement program in the US. With it comes a European level of unemployment. Which strains the US finances further. Which keeps the deficit at sky high levels. Which breaks the back of the US financial system, which causes the Fed to intervene too much, which results in price increases, leading to social unrest, states breaking away from the federal system and a new day dawning where the federal system, as we know and ( some ) dislike it, does not exist. A happy ending, but a very turbulent journey none the less.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Good analogy. I like it! Just like the first got here Americans have their reservation lands, the decendants of the 2nd wave of Americans, the ones who arrived in the country between 1600 and 1940, should also be entitled to sections of the country where they retain their sovereignty.

How about the 3rd wave, those of us who came after 1940? Where's our spot with free education and free health care?

Huh? Teaching, daycare centers, psychiatrists? Interesting.

Quoting graz: Well then, here's this for you John, and for the books of Bob Wright... inspired I guess, by his former father... jeebus:

Morally directed by whom we ask?

Thank goodness a famous jazz musician, Horace Silver, who is still alive and hopefully well. Agree, "A Song For My Father" is a beautiful tune. John

Quoting bkjazfan: Thank goodness a famous jazz musician, Horace Silver, who is still alive and hopefully well. Agree, "A Song For My Father" is a beautiful tune.

John

I concur. http://s0.ilike.com/play#Horace+Silv...a4d42e39419e90

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I kind of agree. BHTV can be pretty tame. I watched some of the Eli/Spencer talk yesterday. Eli starts off by congratulating Spencer on besting Pat Buchanan in their mini debate on TV. When I watch the clip, not only did I think PJB made his points better, I thought their exchange was a lot more lively and interesting than what is heard on this channel. The underpants guy should be interrogate fully and tried by the military. BHTV hardly talks about the issue.

Haven't watched that one.

On your manufacturing point I worry that US manufactures are being locked out of the access to raw materials in the world.

I'm not worried. Look, the US has a huge amount of resources, and besides, the most important resource is human ingenuity. Countries that do have resources *want* to sell them to whoever can make use of them. So I don't see how one would be locked out of raw materials.

Also, how much of the trade imbalance money is coming back into this country in the form of foreign purchases of property and other hard assets? If China is using the money Americans pay for the stuff in Walmart to buy American office

Quoting Simon Willard: We are in a difficult situation. A smuggled weapon can be deployed by nihilists to cripple one nation's economy, and the source of that weapon can remain a mystery. This would be true if we lived in a world with no nukes, as you point out, but it would also be true in a world where everyone has nukes. So it really doesn't help that "everyone knows that everyone knows etc..."

This is like the knickerbomber situation. As soon as something goes wrong, people will drop their concerns for privacy in favor of transparency. When rogue nukes are used, some form of world government will follow.

Terrifying.

Good analogy. I like it! Just like the first got here Americans have their reservation lands, the decendants of the 2nd wave of Americans, the ones who arrived in the country between 1600 and 1940, should also be entitled to sections of the country where they retain their sovereignty.

Another great idea, Steve. You can have the West Virginia Reservation. A great event for you Tea Bag protesters in 2010 would be a reenactment of the (white man's) Trail of Tears Here is the Wikipedia entry, which I have slightly edited for greater accuracy:

The Trail of Tears was the relocation and movement of Native Tea Bag activists, including many members of the White Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,and Mississippi nations among others in the United States, from their homelands to Tea Bag Territory (present day WV).

Quoting AemJeff: I concur.

http://s0.ilike.com/play#Horace+Silv...a4d42e39419e90

Me too, and emphatically. I have not thought of Horace Silver for a while and so I'm glad to hear he is alive and athrive.
Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

[quote=Onederment;144470]I am delighted to see Bob coming around to accepting the moral if not necessarily pragmatic viability of the one-state option for Palestine-Israel.]
More gefilte fish--aka one state idiocy--from the resident, pacific luftmentsch. Just get in from the anti escalation rally, did you? How did that work out for you? Was it held before or after the Nobel speech? Oh well, Onederment, what can you expect from a war monger like Obama, right? Care to step outside, so to speak (and not to attend a rally), on the morality, wisdom, what all ever else, of one statism or your pacifism? I would not have thought so. After all: "...You are stardust, you are golden
And you''ve got to get yourself back to the garden..." Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

Quoting Unit: I don't know much about foreign policy but just from a game theoretic perspective (which should appeal to Bob) a world with no nukes seems to be much more unstable than a world where everyone has it.

You are missing a key element needed for the US/Soviet situation to have been a stable equilibrium point. It is not sufficient to have nuclear weapons. Theoretical stability requires the actors to have credible survivable force that would remain after any first strike, and which is of sufficient power so as to destroy the adversary. This (along with $ of course) is what drove development of super-hardened underground silos, mobile missles, sophisticated SSBN's, the constantly-flying bombers, massive arsenals of thousands of warheads, and so on. It is the opponent's survivable force that turns first launch into a losing strategy. Absent this sort of large, insanely expensive, and credibly survivable force which few actors can afford, game theory suggests the opposite outcome. The actors are in positions in which their deadly weaponry can destroy each other, but offers no retalitory deterrent. The game motivates one to shoot first to survive.

Robert Wright believes that 'climategate' is a non-story. What is revealed by the e-mails
(and just as importantly
by the software which also was posted)
is not the usual tawdry story
of bickering amongst academic factions
but a conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. I could document this with countless links
where this disgraceful affair is examined in detail
but no doubt it would be pointless. Mr. Wright has his opinion and ideology
and he cannot be bothered by spending some time
examining the facts.

Quoting cragger: You are missing a key element needed for the US/Soviet situation to have been a stable equilibrium point. It is not sufficient to have nuclear weapons. Theoretical stability requires the actors to have credible survivable force that would remain after any first strike, and which is of sufficient power so as to destroy the adversary. This (along with $ of course) is what drove development of super-hardened underground silos, mobile missles, sophisticated SSBN's, the constantly-flying bombers, massive arsenals of thousands of warheads, and so on. It is the opponent's survivable force that turns first launch into a losing strategy.

Absent this sort of large, insanely expensive, and credibly survivable force which few actors can afford, game theory suggests the opposite outcome. The actors are in positions in which their deadly weaponry can destroy each other, but offers no retalitory deterrent. The game motivates one to shoot first to survive.

You could be right. I'd like to see a serious game theoretic analysis of this issue.

Quoting AemJeff: From the above:
...but the above quote seems crafted to push a certain type of individual's buttons. Maybe I'm reading it too closely.

Which certain type of individual's buttons would he be trying to push? All he seems to be saying is that those who have argued there are essentially no differences among races, on average, are about to be dealt a major blow. But I maintained that while we are apparently going to see much more detail with respect to these distributional differences, science had already shown differences for years. I understand why Kaus fears this, but I thought his comments were unscientific. Not too surprising since he doesn't have a scientific background, but there won't be data showing differences in "competence" across groups. Kaus also said he doesn't want to know any of this new information, which is of course a legitimate preference, but others are curious about this aspect of humanity. When he says the differences among bell curves is small, that is a subjective statement. If one examines IQ which supposedly has between a 40% and 60% heredibility component, the gap between Asians and whites as well as between Hispanics and blacks

More gefilte fish--aka one state idiocy--from the resident, pacific luftmentsch.

Well, we'll see. Get back to me in 2020. Another possibility is that the shrinking majority of pro-2-state Palestinians like Abbas may see the window of opportunity slamming shut and declare independence, taking statehood to the UN. All they need basically is a green light from the EU. That should be doable in the near future. If Palestine is recognized by the UN as constituting all the territories outside the Green Line, the Settlers would be under Palestinian law and the IDF would have to get out. The problems wouldn't be solved (one big one is a contiguous strip between Gaza and the WB; another one is adminstration of J-Lem; a third is getting the Islamists and the Settler religious fascists to refrain from violence), but there would be no turning back on 2-state and no hope for 1-state.

My prediction is that these forthcoming articles will generate a buzz, but that soon after few will care. One concern I have is that few journalists think scientifically or can handle basic statitistics, and so these upcoming findings may be wrongly interpreted.

It's hard to envision a scenario where a study is agreed to be a valid representation of reality from all sides. Yet even if one came to be, it's also hard to envision a scenario where said study would change very much. I predict that this study would bring about no cataclysmic shifts in social policy, those who are already against social programs would use it to paint programs like Affirmative Action as racist, while those who are already for social programs would say it is an irrelevant detail because a person's economic output has far more to do with what economic sphere he/she grew up in then innate intelligence. As an aside, assuming the "Flynn Effect" is real, then the distribution of intelligence is probably more of a Rayleigh distribution then the normally thought of bell curve. This somewhat lessens the importance of a nonzero difference existing between the white/asian and black/mexican IQ mean.

Quoting Wonderment: Well, we'll see. Get back to me in 2020.

Another possibility is that the shrinking majority of pro-2-state Palestinians like Abbas may see the window of opportunity slamming shut and declare independence, taking statehood to the UN.

All they need basically is a green light from the EU. That should be doable in the near future.

If Palestine is recognized by the UN as constituting all the territories outside the Green Line, the Settlers would be under Palestinian law and the IDF would have to get out.

The problems wouldn't be solved (one big one is a contiguous strip between Gaza and the WB; another one is adminstration of J-Lem; a third is getting the Islamists and the Settler religious fascists to refrain from violence), but there would be no turning back on 2-state and no hope for 1-state.

Is there much serious talk about this? I can see how economic pressure would really tweak Israel

Quoting cragger: You are missing a key element needed for the US/Soviet situation to have been a stable equilibrium point. It is not sufficient to have nuclear weapons. Theoretical stability requires the actors to have credible survivable force that would remain after any first strike, and which is of sufficient power so as to destroy the adversary. This (along with $ of course) is what drove development of super-hardened underground silos, mobile missiles, sophisticated SSBN's, the constantly-flying bombers, massive arsenals of thousands of warheads, and so on. It is the opponent's survivable force that turns first launch into a losing strategy.

Absent this sort of large, insanely expensive, and credibly survivable force which few actors can afford, game theory suggests the opposite outcome. The actors are in positions in which their deadly weaponry can destroy each other, but offers no retaliatory deterrent. The game motivates one to shoot first to survive.

This is irrelevant; we are not in a two-party stand-off. You need to discuss what game theory says about a world where nine or ten actors have weapons, and not every actor has the same interest in deterrence.

Regarding the trend-line predictions: 1. Mickey is bang-on in identifying loneliness as a key trend. The biggest contributors, I think, are wider geographic dispersal of families, coupled with increasing undesirability of travel (gridlocked highways, grueling flights); “custom-tailoring” in the marketplace, leading to futile expectations of the same in social interactions (nobody is “just like you,” and even if there were such a person, how long could you stand her/him?); and the rise of employer-worker relationships in which everybody in the shop is essentially a temp (more and more, a telecommuting rather than physically present one). Bob is on to something in recommending a pet. Revealingly, perhaps, my local SPCA doesn’t permit an adoption without the person and animal demonstrating compatibility for an hour or so while a trained observer watches. 2. Balkanization of American and other advanced societies will accelerate. There will be more free-agent workers and retirees who can choose where they live, and they will choose places they find welcoming. This will be bad news for outpost communities, more liberal or conservative than the areas surrounding them. (College towns may continue to be exceptions.) In this way, people will take gerrymandering out of the hands of politicians. 3. Political

Is there much serious talk about this?

Yes, this is the real deal with Sweden leading the way.

In the second half of 2009, during its term as president of the EU, Sweden attempted to institute a sweeping change in EU policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. The primary change it sought was EU recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The final text adopted by the EU member states is far from Sweden's initial draft proposal. A comparison of the two texts, however, is instructive regarding some of the prevailing attitudes in the EU and the limitations of certain EU member countries in formulating position-based policies. However, the final version also reveals an erosion of support by many nations towards Israel. The Israeli government ought not to ignore this change or the reasons behind it.

Fraser looks pretty depressed. He may be suffering from SAD. Get him some vitamin D and maybe some weed.

Quoting Wonderment: Well, we'll see. Get back to me in 2020.

Another possibility is that the shrinking majority of pro-2-state Palestinians like Abbas may see the window of opportunity slamming shut and declare independence, taking statehood to the UN.

All they need basically is a green light from the EU. That should be doable in the near future.

If Palestine is recognized by the UN as constituting all the territories outside the Green Line, the Settlers would be under Palestinian law and the IDF would have to get out.

The problems wouldn't be solved (one big one is a contiguous strip between Gaza and the WB; another one is adminstration of J-Lem; a third is getting the Islamists and the Settler religious fascists to refrain from violence), but there would be no turning back on 2-state and no hope for 1-state.

If you believe the news Obama has said he wants two states by 2012: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com..._to_netanyahu/

Quoting allbetsareoff: Regarding the trend-line predictions:

1. Mickey is bang-on in identifying loneliness as a key trend. The biggest contributors, I think, are wider geographic dispersal of families, coupled with increasing undesirability of travel (gridlocked highways, grueling flights); “custom-tailoring” in the marketplace, leading to futile expectations of the same in social interactions (nobody is “just like you,” and even if there were such a person, how long could you stand her/him?); and the rise of employer-worker relationships in which everybody in the shop is essentially a temp (more and more, a telecommuting rather than physically present one). Bob is on to something in recommending a pet. Revealingly, perhaps, my local SPCA doesn’t permit an adoption without the person and animal demonstrating compatibility for an hour or so while a trained observer watches.

This (#1) doesn't sound right. What with the growing Internet communities, such as this one? And it also seems at odds with #2,3,4 below.

2. Balkanization of American and other advanced societies will accelerate. There will be more free-agent workers and retirees who can choose where they live, and they will choose places they find welcoming. This will be bad news for outpost communities, more liberal or conservative than the areas surrounding

If you believe the news Obama has said he wants two states by 2012

Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Jan. 8, 2008: "US President George W. Bush said Thursday he believes Israel and the Palestinian Arabs will sign a peace treaty enabling the creation of "Palestine" on the historical land of Israel by the end of his term in the White House, a year from now." All US presidents from now till doomsday will endorse a 2-state resolution of the problem. It's empty rhetoric at best, obstructionism and delusions of grandeur at worst. Clinton had the bug too. He caught it from Jimmy Carter (who, unlike his successors, actually helped achieved something in the region).

The saddest part in this conversation is where these two goobers agree that in the future the government will have civil servants doing stuff consultants have done recently, except in the military where contracting services is a bad idea. This is dumb, knee-jerk opinionating by guys who have no way of knowing what they're talking about. I think they must have got this from Al Gore reinventing government. Look, dudes, if contracting services is bad in the military, it's bad everywhere else. What it boils down to is the taxpayer giving money to consultants to teach themselves to do the things civil servants do, and once they get the knowledge turning around to charge the taxpayer up the ass to do it. As an extra added bonus, the consultant has no direct responsibility to serve, but only a responibility to please the civil servant who runs the contract-- the civil servant now doesn't know as much about the job as the consultant does, and his responsibility is no longer about serving the public, but about handing money to a consultant to do a job he no longer

Mickey's suggestion that CNN President Jon Klein would be fired in 2010 reminds me of the joke about the 100 year old man. Interviewer: how does it fell to be 100 years old?

100 Year Old Man: Not bad ... considering the alternatives! Like many of my friends, I am appalled at the quality of CNN (with some exceptions such as Blitzer, Zakharia and Amanpour) but I cannot recommend any reasonable alternative for CNN to follow. Ultimately the market for quality news analysis does not seem to be there. My suggestion:

Ban live feeds. Have a half hour delay to edit for NEWS!!! Not everything live is NEWS!!!!!

In Canada, I generally watch BBC for international news. They seem to do a good job of covering the US. We recently got CCN-International which looks to be interesting. Mickey, quit whining and make some concrete suggestions for quality news analysis that can attract views to CNN. Enquiring minds want to know. Then use those suggestions to apply for Jon Klein's job!

Mickey Kaus criticises Bob for previously saying that Tiger would be a good role model(way before all the sexual revelations). I think Tiger has now become an even better role model for modern Americans. He is super rich, a professional athlete, a celebrity and he shags a lot of women. Isn't that the American dream?

Do Bob and Mickey know that "the next decade" actually starts at the end of this year and not the start of it? Remember you don't count zero.

Depends on how you define loneliness. I was thinking of nonvirtual companionship. (Showing my age, I guess.)

I'm always hopeful that geat thinkers will push my thinking to a higher level in readiing and listening to them. I would have expected the #27 thought leader to be more balanced in his world views. Roberts Wright's views come right out of the well worn liberal manifestos. As he espouses these one-sided views he at the same time expresses little hope that our divided red and blue country can come together. In my humble opinion (if I had to label myself I'd say I'm economically conservative and socially liberal) Mr. wright may be #27 in "thought" (I read and admire his books) but falls short in the "leader" part of his latest accolade. A true thought LEADER would inspire us all with perhaps new ways of looking at things that could bring us together. Unfortunately, I would have experienced the same thing in reverse had I been listening to a "thought leader" with a fully conservative bent. I guess I'm just too idealistic.

Shorter DPD:

You can't be considered one of the world's great thinkers unless you agree with me.

Quoting Epicurus: Do Bob and Mickey know that "the next decade" actually starts at the end of this year and not the start of it?

Remember you don't count zero.

Yes; you do count zero. You're thinking of millenia, in which case there is no zero to count, in the Western calendar. You just take the first decade as a short one, years 1-9, because there is no year zero, and from then on you begin your count with zero: 10-19, etc.

Where did Mickey get this thing about ecoterrorism? He mentioned how scared he was of ecoterrorists in another diavlog too. What the hell?

Quoting kezboard: Where did Mickey get this thing about ecoterrorism? He mentioned how scared he was of ecoterrorists in another diavlog too. What the hell?

Did you ever get the feeling that "Mickey Kaus" is an elaborate role play exercise that Mickey likes to indulge in?

Quoting AemJeff: Did you ever get the feeling that "Mickey Kaus" is an elaborate role play exercise that Mickey likes to indulge in?

I used to think that. I now think it's more the case that Mickey has realized his fanbase is much more to the right than the left, and so he makes a point of tossing them regular bones. Or, in his self-appointed role of watchdog of the supposed excesses of his putative party, he has, with old age, become more extreme because he has become more fearful. Don't forget his xenophobia and hypochondria as other indicators. But yeah, I remain at least slightly open to the possibility that a lot of this is just his stage game.

But yeah, I remain at least slightly open to the possibility that a lot of this is just his stage game.

Why would anyone pretend to be a racist? Wardrobe choice revealed here.*

Quoting Wonderment: Why would anyone pretend to be a racist? Wardrobe choice revealed here.*

*Disclaimer: You can't make this shit up.

I don't see that link shows Mickey Kaus's choice of costume at some Halloween party. Assuming you know that he did make this choice (and that you're not just kidding here), I'd say dressing as a member of the KKK at Halloween, in LA*, is at worst in poor taste, and unless I had other reasons to believe that person was truly sympathetic to the KKK's views, I'd write it off as a lame attempt to be outrageous. This last would seem entirely consistent with my view of Mickey. ========== * [Added] More precisely, in the slice of LA Mickey runs in.

By the way, I didn't see this linked on the side-bar but Mickey did mention this article briefly (Texas vs. California): http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_california.html

I was just kidding. Sorry if that wasn't obvious. I've deleted the disclaimer part which probably led to the confusion.

Quoting Wonderment: I was just kidding. Sorry if that wasn't obvious. I've deleted the disclaimer part which probably led to the confusion.

Sorry I missed the joke.

I'd write it off as a lame attempt to be outrageous. This last would seem entirely consistent with my view of Mickey.

P.S. If you want to figure out how I found that, I just image-Googled "Anti-Mexican Klan," which is entirely consistent with my view of Mickey.

Quoting Wonderment: P.S. If you want to figure out how I found that, I just image-Googled "Anti-Mexican Klan," which is entirely consistent with my view of Mickey.

That much I'm pretty well convinced is not an act. And if it is, he deserves just as much disdain for playing the role so long and so well, if "well" is the right word. (Probably "convincingly" would be better.)

Quoting Ray: Yes; you do count zero.

You're thinking of millenia, in which case there is no zero to count, in the Western calendar.

You just take the first decade as a short one, years 1-9, because there is no year zero, and from then on you begin your count with zero: 10-19, etc.

You just made up that rule. I am technically right. However, if you decide to count like that I don't mind it.

Quoting kezboard: Where did Mickey get this thing about ecoterrorism? He mentioned how scared he was of ecoterrorists in another diavlog too. What the hell?

If you look at death statistics it is actually mental to be afraid of terrorism when you compare it to things like dying in a car accident or getting the flu.

Quoting Epicurus: You just made up that rule.

I am technically right.

However, if you decide to count like that I don't mind it.

You're just being silly. And wasting your time. Tell me: When people talk about the 1970s, do they mean 1971-1980, excluding the year 1970? No, of course not. On Jan. 1, 1980, were we at the end of a decade known as "the 70s?" Yes, of course we were. You know both of these things already, making me wonder what your point is.

Quoting Epicurus: I am technically right.

Since you are technically right, I suggest you go clean up Wikipedia. Have fun explaining to people over there why the 1960s would include 1970, but not 1960.

Quoting TwinSwords: Since you are technically right, I suggest you go clean up Wikipedia.

LOL! I'd love to follow that edit war!

Does a DECade mean ten years or not?

Quoting TwinSwords: You're just being silly. And wasting your time.

Tell me: When people talk about the 1970s, do they mean 1971-1980, excluding the year 1970?

No, of course not.

On Jan. 1, 1980, were we at the end of a decade known as "the 70s?"

Yes, of course we were.

You know both of these things already, making me wonder what your point is.

My wasted time must be just as valuable as yours since you have responded.

Quoting Epicurus: Does a DECade mean ten years or not?

Is 2000 to 2009 ten years or not? (1/1/2000 to 12/31/2009, I mean.)

Quoting TwinSwords: You're just being silly. And wasting your time.

Tell me: When people talk about the 1970s, do they mean 1971-1980, excluding the year 1970?

No, of course not.

On Jan. 1, 1980, were we at the end of a decade known as "the 70s?"

Yes, of course we were.

You know both of these things already, making me wonder what your point is.

Well, what do people mean when they say "the sixties" ? Many mean something akin to 1966-1973.

Quoting nikkibong: Well, what do people mean when they say "the sixties" ?

Many mean something akin to 1966-1973.

Yup. "Decade" doesn't have the same formal valence of "week," "month," or "year," for example. It just names a span, and is often used as a general designation for a period approximating ten years. The "fifties" certainly lasted until JFK was killed, and probably didn't begin before Ike took office. The "eighties" were pretty much defined by Reagan's term (and musicians who didn't know how to use synthesizers or drum machines very well, but that's another story...)

Quoting nikkibong: Well, what do people mean when they say "the sixties" ?

Many mean something akin to 1966-1973.

Yeah, and when people say "home" they often mean their workplace, because they spend so much time there. But aside from the cultural connotation you and Jeff are talking about, (A) When people refer to the 1860's or 1970's, the vast majority of the time they mean the ten years that begin with 186x or 197x -- as you are well aware. Even people who use "the fifties" to refer to a cultural span are well aware that they are deviating from conventional usage, and almost always have to explain the exception to the usual understanding whereby "the fifties" means the ten year period starting on Jan. 1, 1950 and ending on Dec. 31, 1959. (B) In any case, "the sixties" clearly does not by anyone's lights mean what Epicurus is suggesting, the ten year span starting on January 1, 1961, and ending on December 31, 1970. Obviously.

Quoting Epicurus: My wasted time must be just as valuable as yours since you have responded.

A valid observation!

Quoting Epicurus: Does a DECade mean ten years or not?

Come on, you can't be seriously suggesting that if the year is 1990, it is not yet the 1990s, and is still the 1980s. When there is already ten year span of years that each start with 199-something, why would you need to contrive a different ten year span of years which excludes 1990 and includes 2000?

You know, I was thinking while listening to this podcast that there's another possible solution for the Middle East problem, which I guess you could call the Dayton solution or the Bosnia solution -- make it a federation with two 'entities' that govern themselves, have separate constitutions, police forces, and so forth, have a rotating presidency, appoint some diplomat from a boring neutral country to be the High Representative and oversee everything. This solution kind of sucks (it sucks for Bosnia too), but it would allow both entities a certain amount of integrity while denying them the sort of self-determination that means bulldozing people's houses or setting off suicide bombs, and it might be more politically feasible than the one-state solution. The Israelis can call it Israel-Palestine and the Palestinians can call it Palestine-Israel, and it would be a total bureaucratic nightmare but maybe people would stop dying.

The Israelis can call it Israel-Palestine and the Palestinians can call it Palestine-Israel, and it would be a total bureaucratic nightmare but maybe people would stop dying.

I've heard several variations on your idea over the years. There is no lack of viable plans to resolve the conflict; there are dozens. The issue is the intractable, dysfunctional, addictive hatred between the parties. Everyone is a martyr; everyone a victim; everyone holds everyone else in self-righteous contempt; everyone feels isolated, cornered and misunderstood. They all deny it, but many on both sides would just like the whole nightmare to go on forever. The problem is that it can't; the conflict is not sustainable in perpetuity.

Quoting bjkeefe: Is 2000 to 2009 ten years or not? (1/1/2000 to 12/31/2009, I mean.)

If you go back to year 0 you know I am technically right. Lets break it down for you. This is the tenth year of this millennium. A year is made up of 365 days(I know it isn't exactly 365), right? On day one has the tenth year finished? So at the end of this year. When day 365 finishes then it will be the next decade. If you include 2000(day 1) to 2009(day 365) that is ten years yes but you have stolen a year from the previous millennium. If you take it all the way back the first decade AD/CE will have had 9 years. Please tell me you understand.

Quoting TwinSwords: Come on, you can't be seriously suggesting that if the year is 1990, it is not yet the 1990s, and is still the 1980s.

When there is already ten year span of years that each start with 199-something, why would you need to contrive a different ten year span of years which excludes 1990 and includes 2000?

I would still say 1990 is part of the 1990s. Is year ten part of the first decade or not? It is ten years in a decade and not nine right? There is no zero year. You start counting at one but year one isn't finished till the end of the last day of that year. What I am saying is that it is the end and not the start of this year that is the end of the decade.

Quoting Epicurus: If you go back to year 0 you know I am technically right.

There is no year 0 in our usual (Julian-->Gregorian) calendar. However, I am happy to take any given starting point as year 0 for the purposes of discussion.

Lets break it down for you.

This is the tenth year of this millennium.

No. I view 2010 as the eleventh year of the millennium, since I view 2000 as the first year of the millennium. [Sidebar: I grant the argument that people make, which extends back to what should have been called year 0 being called year 1, but still, as Josh said to CJ (Leo? Sam? Someone ...), "What's more exciting? Watching your odometer change from 99,999 to 100,000, or from 100,000 to 100,001?"]

A year is made up of 365 days(I know it isn't exactly 365), right? On day one has the tenth year finished? So at the end of this year. When day 365 finishes then it will be the next decade.

If you include 2000(day 1) to 2009(day 365) that is ten years yes but you have stolen a year from the previous millennium.

Justifiable thievery, even if so. However, not so. It is merely a convention where one places the starting point, and since we most commonly say "the X-ies" to include all years in which the penultimate digit is X, I take the year ending in 0 to be the first year of the new decade, and the year ending in 9 to be the tenth and last.

If you take it all the way

Quoting bjkeefe: [Sidebar: I grant the argument that people make, which extends back to what should have been called year 0 being called year 1, but still, as Josh said to CJ (Leo? Sam? Someone ...), "What's more exciting? Watching your odometer change from 99,999 to 100,000, or from 100,000 to 100,001?"]

If you are going for convention and "excitement" over accuracy that is fine and you free to do so.

Quoting Blister: T
Look, dudes, if contracting services is bad in the military, it's bad everywhere else. What it boils down to is the taxpayer giving money to consultants to teach themselves to do the things civil servants do, and once they get the knowledge turning around to charge the taxpayer up the ass to do it. As an extra added bonus, the consultant has no direct responsibility to serve, but only a responibility to please the civil servant who runs the contract-- the civil servant now doesn't know as much about the job as the consultant does, and his responsibility is no longer about serving the public, but about handing money to a consultant to do a job he no longer understands.

you spelled that out perfectly, and i couldn't agree more.

Quoting Epicurus: If you are going for convention and "excitement" over accuracy that is fine and you free to do so.

Nice sound bite, but in fact, I am not being at all inaccurate. The convention of choosing 0 as the starting point is not at all wrong merely because "conventional" carries derogatory connotations in other contexts. And as far as "excitement" goes, I'd say that in addition to the benefit you'd derive from a few months of programming in C, you'd also be well served to work on your sense of humor. Did not my flagging that bit with "Sidebar," enclosing it in brackets, and rendering it in italics give you enough of a clue that I was kidding around?

I don't know, at least being worried about the Reconquista panders to a specific group, i.e. paleocons, Southwestern racists, and Tom Tancredo, but who the hell is worried about ecoterrorists? I know Glenn Beck has been mongering recently about how terrifying environmentalism is, but are people really listening? Who cares? Have ecoterrorists actually killed anyone ever? What does Mickey think is so particularly terrifying about a couple dozen bunnies being released from some pharmaceutical lab? Or does he actually live on a Japanese whaling boat? You know, the first thing my mother said after we turned the television on the morning of September the Eleventh (as Bush liked to call it) and I said "It probably was Osama bin Laden" was "Don't jump to conclusions, it might be ecoterrorists". I've spent the last nine years mercilessly making fun of her for this. I mean, on the list of Potential Threats to America, does it even make the top fifty? ETA: I realized after posting this that the Unabomber could probably be considered an ecoterrorist. OK, taken into consideration. But he's in jail now, and it seems to me like American society is perfectly capable of dealing with the occasional homicidal schizophrenic.

Quoting kezboard: I don't know, at least being worried about the Reconquista panders to a specific group, i.e. paleocons, Southwestern racists, and Tom Tancredo, but who the hell is worried about ecoterrorists? [...]

Exactly. Which is why my first instinct was to see this as Mickey tossing a bone to his new base. They are not really worried about ecoterrorists, but they're an easy and familiar target. They are also the all-purpose "but what about???1?" rebuttal (the wingers think) whenever any of the myriad of hate groups on the fringe right is mentioned.