Quoting blocheed: I'm waiting to hear someone point out that "Wall Street" gives more to Democrats than Republicans. Isn't that significant?

Here's another one: Where was the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in '06 & '08?

Doesn't Wall Street money tend to get shoveled in the direction of who's in office at any given time?

Quoting blocheed: Here's another one: Where was the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in '06 & '08?

Reeling over there losses, riight? They sure as hell weren't ready for '06. They seemed to recover quickly, though. That seems pretty evident.

My point is only that the VRWC is a boogeyman to explain Democrat losses so that Democrats like Joan (Joe seems a little closer to reality here) can avoid concerning themselves with the possibility that maybe Democrats ARE getting their message out but the people don't like it. Case in point: Does Obama really think he didn't communicate enough with the American people about health care? How can he think that?

For all the praise Joe heaps on Hillary Clinton, he ignores the fact that upstate NY was Hillary's base during her time as Senator. Upstate is even more of an economic basket case AH than BH. Untariffed imports from China put manufacturing out of business. IBM, which has been a big employer in upstate NY, is outsourcing a lot of work to India and China. Unions have not been pressured enough to allow young, lower pay workers to be hired. Hillary had nothing critical to say about the NY state and NYC politicians who have strangled upstate with high taxes and mandates.

Joan/Joe remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism?
To quote Joan

The climate right now is that Republicans use everything they can to undermine and delegitimize this president. And it’s actually un-American. It’s traitorous, in my opinion. Do you want to give aid and comfort to our enemies? Continue to treat this president like he wasn’t elected and he doesn’t know what he’s doing! He knows what he did. He knows what he’s doing. I’m proud of him. I believe that he has the stalwart, resolute nature to get this done…

And to quote Joe.

Fox News peddles a fair amount of hateful crap. Some of it borders on sedition.

Democrats just don't get it. Deficit spending at the federal level is out of control. I read the deficit for the first 3 months of the 2010 fiscal year was $390 billion. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=449 And of course, there is the economy. How does the unemployment rate drop when the cost of labor is also not dropping? In a recession, labor rates fall, which spurs new business startups to profit from the lower cost of doing business. Because of the never ending extensions of unemployment payments, labor rates are not dropping the way they should ( and need to ). BTW, the supposedly nihilistic republicans in congress support extending unemployment benefits. Joe and Joan appear interested solely in new policies, more goverment programs, more spending. Joe makes a lot of good points. He is easily the smartest democrat around today. But, you know, get real. The country is falling apart. Consider the prospects of urban unrest once handouts are slashed the necessary 30% to balance the budget.

The problem with this country is that Republicans are "completely immoral nihilists"? Not to mention seditious traitors? That's it? That's Joe Klein and Joan Walsh's analysis? Wow! No wonder the Democrats are in big trouble.

another disappointing pair on Bhtv.

Hear, hear. Well put, Joan.

These two appear on the cable news talk shows all the time -- why give them a platform here? Where's Tomasky, btw?

Quoting nikkibong: These two appear on the cable news talk shows all the time -- why give them a platform here?

I concur. These guys are spouting a lot of overly broad platitudes.
Bloggingheads can do better. Joe said it: "I'm old and I don't care anymore". Joe: Not everybody who reads the "New Yorker" is a Time Magazine style liberal.

Quoting Richard from Amherst: Joe said it: "I'm old and I don't care anymore".

That's unfairly out of context. What he was saying is that he doesn't care anymore about the possible consequences of saying "I don't know." We would be a lot better off if Joe were not in such a minority on this point.

Quoting nikkibong: These two appear on the cable news talk shows all the time -- why give them a platform here?

Where's Tomasky, btw?

I agree with your general sentiment, and I sure do miss hearing from Robert De Niro Tomasky, but I have to say, I enjoyed listening to this diavlog and I thought both Joan and Joe said useful things. This may be because I rarely watch cable talk shows, I grant, but these two seemed qualitatively different from the usual babble I see when I can't escape said watching.

Quoting sirfith: Joan/Joe remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism?

There is dissent, and then there is a concentrated ongoing effort to poison the discourse, where the starting assumption is that the opposition is by definition not legitimate, where no respect is paid to the truth, where the only objective is to spread FUD among those unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves. Just chanting slogans doesn't change the reality of what the right-wing noise machine has overwhelmingly been guilty of for the past three decades, at least.

Quoting jnseward: The problem with this country is that Republicans are "completely immoral nihilists"? Not to mention seditious traitors? That's it? That's Joe Klein and Joan Walsh's analysis? Wow! No wonder the Democrats are in big trouble.

That's it? That's your analysis of this diavlog? Wow! No wonder the word wingnut has so much resonance.

Quoting bjkeefe: I agree with your general sentiment, and I sure do miss hearing from Robert De Niro Tomasky, but I have to say, I enjoyed listening to this diavlog and I thought both Joan and Joe said useful things. This may be because I rarely watch cable talk shows, I grant, but these two seemed qualitatively different from the usual babble I see when I can't escape said watching.

Actually, I agree. I was pleasantly surprised by this diavlog...up until the end, when we got 10 to 15 variations on "Joe Klein knows Hillary Clinton!!!"

Quoting bjkeefe: ...I agree with your general sentiment, and I sure do miss hearing from Robert De Niro Tomasky...

If you really miss his De Niro visage or the actual sound of his voice, I've been catching his act here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/mi...+content/video You and nikkibong may already be aware of this. Not bloggingheads, just talking Tomasky.

Quoting nikkibong: Actually, I agree. I was pleasantly surprised by this diavlog...up until the end, when we got 10 to 15 variations on "Joe Klein knows Hillary Clinton!!!"

That didn't bother me. Like it or not, when all is said and done, our country is run by individuals, and a very small handful of them at that. For all of the bad parts that go along with journalists worrying about preserving access, it is useful or at least interesting to hear the perspective of someone who gets to know someone at the top of the power pyramid. I guess I think it sucks more in terms of how the daily news is reported, but it's a benefit from the historical perspective. I think in the case of Hillary in particular, she has had to deal with an unusually difficult situation involving how she is perceived, by virtue of being a woman and a former First Lady, and so consequently, I have long felt it's harder for an average slob like me to know "the real Hillary," whatever that might mean. Did you ever read Primary Colors? Highly recommended. Even if some of the details are obviously made up to serve the

Quoting graz: If you really miss his De Niro visage or the actual sound of his voice, I've been catching his act here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/mi...+content/video

You and nikkibong may already be aware of this. Not bloggingheads, just talking Tomasky.

I try to remember to read his stuff in the Guardian, but I was not aware of this. Thanks very much.

Here is a Dick Armey's remark Joan referred to: I'm so damn glad you can never be my wife because I surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day Dick Armey is a great patriot and it saddens me to see he and Joan don't get along. Having said that, boy, oh boy, it’s sure gratifying to hear two liberals squeal like pigs. Man, oh man, redneck teabagger - everything I’ve ever wanted to be!

Quoting JoeK: Here is a Dick Armey's remark Joan referred to: I'm so damn glad you can never be my wife because I surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day

Dick Armey is a great patriot and it saddens me to see he and Joan don't get along.

Having said that, boy, oh boy, it’s sure gratifying to hear two liberals squeal like pigs. Man, oh man, redneck teabagger - everything I’ve ever wanted to be!

I think Enzyte might have what you need.

[Update: See footnote.] Joan: In the hope that you'll read this thread, let me go a little off-topic and address a request to you as Editor in Chief of Salon. I just clicked the sidebar link to Salon's Bogus Stories of the Year. Now, I know very well that (a) listicles sell, (b) the bogosity of page view counts as a metric is still not understood by too many powerful people, and (c) valuable content can't indefinitely be given away for free. However, I still would like to beseech you not to offer listicles only in the one-item-per-page format. My heart sank as soon as I got over there and saw that's what I was facing. Please, either offer a "view as single page" option or at the very least, put the list itself (ideally with hyperlinks) all on the first page.* It is a sad fact of life in this Internet age that what yesterday seemed miraculous today seems tedious. I'm sitting on a FiOS line, which means that I'm getting data piped to me as fast as I could ask, and now that I take that for granted, the lag in server response on your end and browser rendering on my end

I really enjoyed this reality-based, respectful conversation. It was the opposite of the usual scream-fests on cable news.

Check out the AutoPager Firefox add-on.
It will automatically load the next page and add it to the the bottom of your current page. A bhtv user even wrote a special AutoPager script just for bloggingheads.tv!

Quoting redpeakpass: Check out the AutoPager Firefox add-on.
It will automatically load the next page and add it to the the bottom of your current page. A bhtv user even wrote a special AutoPager script just for bloggingheads.tv!

Thanks. I don't know if you saw the footnote I added, but in this case at least, my complaints were largely unfounded. But I may give AutoPager a try, since many other sites don't do what the Salon article in fact did.

Two of my FAVORITE journalists! Thanks, Bloggingheads!

Quoting bjkeefe: There is dissent, and then there is a concentrated ongoing effort to poison the discourse, where the starting assumption is that the opposition is by definition not legitimate, where no respect is paid to the truth, where the only objective is to spread FUD among those unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves..

Do you mean like the we will televise the Health Care debates on CSPAN.
Who can forget how the VRWC promoted the Jena 6 and the Duke Lacrosse hoax.

Quoting redpeakpass: I really enjoyed this reality-based, respectful conversation. It was the opposite of the usual scream-fests on cable news.

Good point. One reason why Joan Walsh and Joe Klein are better on BHTV than on cable news.

Quoting sirfith: Do you mean like the we will televise the Health Care debates on CSPAN.
Who can forget how the VRWC promoted the Jena 6 and the Duke Lacrosse hoax.

"Hoax?" You're jumping to conclusions.

When he doesn't squeal like a pig, Joe Klein shouts Yo Mama! at American people. These are surely the best of times.

Never mind Joan and Joe with their fancy preconditions for this diavlog. John Edwards has a sex tape?!? [Wonkette -> Gawker] wolcott> ========== [Added] That panting sound has to be Mickey, amirite?

I thought this was great, one of the best straight-on political diavlogs ever to be on this site. Fuck all the libertarian pseudo-wonkishness that gets to be like a grad seminar in analytic philosophy, a completely pointless exercise in utopianism. I'm not a Joe Klein Democrat, at least I don't think I am, I like to believe that I'm well to the left of Klein, but this was two adults who follow American politics pretty carefully talking. Klein has the equivalent of academic tenure, he's rich and successful. It also happens that he's far from stupid. I think it's great to have him on bhtv. I hope we're not saying that it's better to listen to Dayo whatever her name is tell us that she has not thought about what Obama could or should have done differently, because Klein, at least, clearly has thought about it...a lot. I've got nothing against Tomasky, I'm happy to hear more Tomasky, I read him religiously in the NYRB. And where's John Judis? Let's get him on here too. I sort of knew him when I was an undergrad in the dark ages, so he has my stamp of approval. So, in the past ten days I have

Quoting JoeK: Dick Armey is a great patriot...

Anybody who talks this way is a traitor to the Revolution.

I am puzzled by attacks on Obama for "special deal making" in trying to pass health insurance reform or anything else. I'm not sure when it was that some other method replaced the LBJ method of getting stuff through congress. I'm not sure what the alternative is that avoids altogether this particular tool.

"We don't know all that much" is the problem for all of us. But, unfortunately, the vast majority of voters know lots less than journalists. And that's why Fox and Limbaugh and all those idiots can be so successful at swaying so many voters. There is too damn much to know and perceptions can be so easily manipulated with fact-free shrieking.

The key moment that tripped up Hillary in the primary campaign was the bogus crap that Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Tim Russert and Brian Williams threw at her about Spitzer's drivers' license plan for undocumented workers. This happened in a critical debate shortly before the Iowa Caucus. That was where she lost her footing and Russert and Williams were part of it. And Edwards and Obama were disingenuous and hypocritical on the issue. Hillary spoke well on that tricky question in which she wanted to avoid tabloid headlines in NYC that she was at odds with Spitzer. She got a raw deal. And the guys DID pile on, though pointing that out in the aftermath was not the wisest campaign response. Hillary was making sense in what she said, but EVERYONE was gunning for her at that point because she was seeming invincible. I blame Russert and Brian Williams most of all for that because they piled on too in an unfair manner.

Wow Klein the biggest problem for the Republican Party is the birthers? haha are you kidding. The biggest problem are the neoconservatives. Speaking of talk radio how about that liberal network, Franken's outfit, going down in flames because no one wants to hear you liberals whining and pretending you there only ones who want to help people.

This is all interesting and cogent analysis, and yes there are strategic things Obama could have done differently and should do differently in the future, he needs to show more political courage, the democrats need to get better at messaging and proving that government can be effective and showing why we need it to be or should want it to be in certain areas, i.e. how its our way of effecting our values as a country etc., and the Democrats should be doing a better job trying to shift the center and show why their values are ones we should pursue. But at the end of the day and beyond all the countless hours and days we spend chattering about the latest so and so, its pretty simple really--if we want a functional government that responds proportionately to the concerns of all of us, instead of disproportionately toward moneyed interests or those for other reasons who have power beyond their percentage of the population, we'd have to make some structural changes. Or everyone can go on just chattering and complaining forever

Quoting ledocs: I have vowed not to get into a lot of ideological argumentation on this site. It's a complete waste of time and the opposite of pleasurable.

Fair enough, and I tend to agree. However I hope you continue to make time for your impressive short essays, because they're really good.

One of the reasons I like this site so much is the great improvement in civility and tone that it brings to those who value such things. It's a great step in the right direction. The next hurdle to get over in our public discourse is to stop rewarding people in the public sphere who simultaneously exalt everything their guy does while demonizing everything the other guy does. Why can't we take each policy one at a time and judge it on its merits? My issue with this particular diavlog is that Joan & Joe basically agree about everything, and so all their presuppositions go unchallenged. I much prefer listening to (for example), the Goldberg/Beinart match-ups because they are a lot less likely to let a questionable assertion go unchallenged. For example, the only real challenging moment in this discussion came when Joan recoiled at the very notion that the MoveOn types are in any way analogous to their counterparts on the Right. Joe quickly added that there was no equivalence in terms of power. And again, like I mentioned earlier, there was no one to challenge

Quoting blocheed: And again, like I mentioned earlier, there was no one to challenge their assumptions about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy which apparently has been on vacation since 2004.

Welcome back, Rip Van Winkle. How was your six-year nap?

Nice timing on Salon's 'Ten Most Bogus Stories Of 2009'. One month after declaring the Climategate emails a whole lotta nothing about nuthin, experts blow holes in two of the findings from the 2007 IPCC report. First they find fraud in the claim that Himilayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, now the Times of London reports there's more fraud found: UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters "The United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrong linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at

Shorter harkin:

These two trees mighta fell down. Therefore, forests do not exist.

Quoting bjkeefe: Shorter harkin:

These two trees mighta fell down. Therefore, forests do not exist.

Related (via): "The IPCC is not infallible (shock!)" Reminder: "Past Decade Warmest Ever, NASA Data Shows." Reminder: "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense," particularly Claim 5.

For those of you who are whining about what Klein and Walsh said about the influence of the Hannities and the Armies and the other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy, can you actually address their point, which is that the Republicans have found themselves in a position where the most politically effective thing they can do is prevent things from getting done and make a giant stink about silly things, and that this is really bad for the country, and that it would be really nice, although fairly implausible, if some elected Republican had an attack of civic responsibility and decided that his/her job was to actually try and influence legislation in a way that led to the possibility of a good bill getting passed, and not just to be the representative of Limbaugh in the House/Senate? It seems to me that the Republican most likely to fill this role is Scott Brown, since he is both politically moderate and has a sufficient amount of cred among the teabaggers (Glenn Beck notwithstanding). I wonder what happens to him in the Senate, either he becomes the biggest RINO ever or he doesn't, but either way it's going to be very interesting.

We all know BHTV is a left-wing site, but can't we have some INTERESTING left-wingers? Maybe someone who *sincerely* believes in attacking Wall Street and didn't support TARP? Klein/Walsh simply repeat what 100 other NYC/DC MSM "journalists" think and say. Talking about "right-wing extremists" and how "Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity" have the Republican party in their c-r-a-z-y grasp is a perfect example. Oh for the days, when "reasonable" Republicans like Arlen Specter, Powell and Chaffee were leading the party! Where's the 'maverick' when we need him?! (sarcasm obvious) Sorry, I'll just read the NY Times & WaPo Op-eds and save time.

Quoting kezboard: For those of you who are whining about what Klein and Walsh said about the influence of the Hannities and the Armies and the other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy, can you actually address their point, which is that the Republicans have found themselves in a position where the most politically effective thing they can do is prevent things from getting done and make a giant stink about silly things, and that this is really bad for the country, and that it would be really nice, although fairly implausible, if some elected Republican had an attack of civic responsibility and decided that his/her job was to actually try and influence legislation in a way that led to the possibility of a good bill getting passed, and not just to be the representative of Limbaugh in the House/Senate?

It seems to me that the Republican most likely to fill this role is Scott Brown, since he is both politically moderate and has a sufficient amount of cred among the teabaggers (Glenn Beck notwithstanding). I wonder what happens to him in the

Quoting kezboard: [...] It seems to me that the Republican most likely to fill this role is Scott Brown, since he is both politically moderate and has a sufficient amount of cred among the teabaggers (Glenn Beck notwithstanding). I wonder what happens to him in the Senate, either he becomes the biggest RINO ever or he doesn't, but either way it's going to be very interesting.

If he doesn't go right into lockstep with the Grand Old Teabaggers, I'll be amazed. The only way I could see that not happening would be if the economy massively turned around by late 2011/early 2012, which boosted the Dems' and Obama's approval numbers significantly, and he realized that in order to win reelection in MA, he'd have no choice but to try to play the "lone moderate" role. And then the knives would really come out.

Quoting Markos: I am puzzled by attacks on Obama for "special deal making" in trying to pass health insurance reform or anything else. I'm not sure when it was that some other method replaced the LBJ method of getting stuff through congress. I'm not sure what the alternative is that avoids altogether this particular tool.

It's just that back then few people knew about it. Everyone knew politicians were 'crooks' they just weren't sure exactly how they were and perhaps didn't really want to know. Now, you can't escape it. It's 24/7. The alternative is honesty and integrity. yeah, right.

The IPCC seems to have a problem with know what is or is not peer reviewed science on a regular basis The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

Shorter pisc:

Moar treez!

There is no denying the forest, however.

Let's see there is Climate Gate, the head of the IPCC and Vice President Gore pushing an opinion that favors their investments Pachauri Gate if you will, glaciers melting 300 years early Glacier Gate. And I can't see the forest for the trees? Seems like some of these guys should be viewing it through the bars of the jail gates at this point.

Quoting piscivorous: ... Climate Gate ... Pachauri Gate ... Glacier Gate ...

Still wondering why I don't take you denialists at all seriously?

I should have included Natural Disaster Gate

In the research, Muir-Wood looked at a wide range of hazards, including tropical cyclones, floods and hurricanes.

He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970 to 2005 he found a 2% annual increase that "corresponded with a period of rising global temperatures," but said almost all of it was due to strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005.

Despite such caveats, the IPCC report used the study in its section on disasters and hazards, but cited only the 1970-2005 results.

The IPCC report said: "Once the data were normalized, a small statistically significant trend was found for an increase in annual catastrophe loss since 1970 of 2% a year." It added: "Once losses are normalized for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, who commissioned Muir-Wood's paper in 2006, has told the IPCC that citing one section in preference to the rest was wrong.

He said: "All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that

Quoting piscivorous: I should have included Natural Disaster Gate.

Yeah. That would have totally persuaded me.

These two want to pretend that they know what the health-care bill was *really* about? Give me a break. Nobody knows.

I think the Great Lakes could freeze year round and you would still defend the models and the deities that created them so you can nix the idea that I am out to convert you into a nonbeliever.

Quoting bjkeefe: Still wondering why I don't take you denialists at all seriously?

Brendan, remember when you said that it was ok to exaggerate the climate evidence in order to get the attention of the cattle? What if you are actually the cattle? Don't you find it troubling that predicting the glacier melt by 2035 was a conscious decision?

Quoting look: Brendan, remember when you said that it was ok to exaggerate the climate evidence in order to get the attention of the cattle? What if you are actually the cattle? Don't you find it troubling that predicting the glacier melt by 2035 was a conscious decision?

Of course he won't find it troubling, it's being done by our brilliant masters such as Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri and Barack Obama who know much better than we what is in our best interest. That is why all three of those great thinkers has a Nobel Prize. Are Gore and Pachauri socking away millions on the side as they direct redistribution of wealth? No matter, a little profit for saving the uneducated and unwashed is surely understandable. And don't bother bjk with facts. Ever notice that any time he employs the word 'shorter', he follows it with 100% bjk? You have to love the fact that he's willing to excuse scientific fraud for political expedience out of one side of his cakehole while out the other hurling accusations on 'denialists'. He's not even right on his 'denialist' charge. Almost every critic of

Quoting look: Brendan, remember when you said that it was ok to exaggerate the climate evidence in order to get the attention of the cattle?

No. I might have said it was understandable for Al Gore to emphasize worst-case projections in his movie, but I would never have said it was okay to exaggerate evidence. As the pit bull CEO I used to work for would frequently bellow, "Don't tell the data. Let the data tell you."

What if you are actually the cattle?

I'm not. If I were (one of) the cattle, I'd be falling for the nonsense pisc and harkin are pushing, where they have made a choice based on political allegiance (on something that shouldn't even be a political issue*) and irrelevant resentments (e.g.), and now spend their time looking only for reinforcement of their preconceived notions.

Don't you find it troubling that predicting the glacier melt by 2035 was a conscious decision?

As I understand it, I don't believe it was a "conscious decision." Sounds like either someone confused a polemical statement with a solid scientific extrapolation, or maybe it was just a simple scrivener's error -- someone wrote "2350" as "2035" -- and in either case, no one checked this, or

Quoting piscivorous: Let's see there is Climate Gate, the head of the IPCC and Vice President Gore pushing an opinion that favors their investments Pachauri Gate if you will, glaciers melting 300 years early Glacier Gate. And I can't see the forest for the trees? Seems like some of these guys should be viewing it through the bars of the jail gates at this point.

The thing that really melting fast is the left. How much more ignominy can they bear? It's so disheartening to know what's best for people, the earth and the entire universe and folks just laugh and elect a nude model.

Quoting bjkeefe: Still wondering why I don't take you denialists at all seriously?

As if anyone cares who you take seriously.

Quoting harkin: Of course he won't find it troubling....

From the comfort of the periphery......brilliant!

Quoting badhatharry: As if anyone cares who you take seriously.

So, rephrased in the passive voice, the assertion still carries force: "Do you wonder why denialists don't get taken seriously?" has a perfectly valid premise.

Quoting AemJeff: So, rephrased in the passive voice, the assertion still carries force: "Do you wonder why denialists don't get taken seriously?" has a perfectly valid premise.

OK, I admit I don't quite get your point. But my point is/was (in case you missed it or I didn't make it clear) that unlike people like you, there are some around here who feel that they can bully and intimidate others, misrepresent points of view and generally are more interested in appearing to win than actually discussing issues. Those people in my opinion lose the right to have anyone care what they say.
Further, those people are suffering under the illusion that anyone besides their little gang takes them seriously.
And just in case you care to rebut with examples of people on the other side behaving as I have described above, I would say that in my experience on this board the whole thing emanates from just a few sources and people have the right to defend themselves. If they don't, they're toast.
I should know :-)

Quoting badhatharry: OK, I admit I don't quite get your point.

But my point is/was (in case you missed it or I didn't make it clear) that unlike people like you, there are some around here who feel that they can bully and intimidate others, misrepresent points of view and generally are more interested in appearing to win than actually discussing issues. Those people in my opinion lose the right to have anyone care what they say.
Further, those people are suffering under the illusion that anyone besides their little gang takes them seriously.
And just in case you care to rebut with examples of people on the other side behaving as I have described above, I would say that in my experience on this board the whole thing emanates from just a few sources and people have the right to defend themselves. If they don't, they're toast.
I should know :-)

Please, you have a right to defend yourself. I think you overstate the "bullying," but I'm accustomed to a more forceful debate style than you are, perhaps. I definitely believe that the quality of the content of your communication counts for at least as much as anything

Quoting AemJeff: Please, you have a right to defend yourself. I think you overstate the "bullying," but I'm accustomed to a more forceful debate style than you are, perhaps. I definitely believe that the quality of the content of your communication counts for at least as much as anything else, and by those criteria, I think your above characterization is ignoring some important features of the debates here.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. How's that for content??!! And I agree that there is a lot of quality in the debates here. I guess that's why I keep coming back.

Joe Klein wishes that Obama had a "wise elder" to guide him in foreign policy. The question is: does the American system of higher education produce people who are wise in foreign policy matters, wise in the way that Henry Kissinger was wise (just read his history of American Diplomacy if you doubt that statement)? It's not my impression that the graduate schools in international relations are doing a very good job in this respect. In any case, the articles that I occasionally read in journals like Foreign Affairs are mainly written by academics in search of tenure. They know the political science jargon of their field but know little about history or the rest of the world. Perhaps someone knows a wise elder who could guide Obama?

Francoamerican (spaghetti) said:

Joe Klein wishes that Obama had a "wise elder" to guide him in foreign policy. The question is: does the American system of higher education produce people who are wise in foreign policy matters, wise in the way that Henry Kissinger was wise (just read his history of American Diplomacy if you doubt that statement)? It's not my impression that the graduate schools in international relations are doing a very good job in this respect. In any case, the articles that I occasionally read in journals like Foreign Affairs are mainly written by academics in search of tenure. They know the political science jargon of their field but know little about history or the rest of the world.

Perhaps someone knows a wise elder who could guide Obama?

I can't tell if you're being ironic about Kissinger. Kissinger is smart, but highly amoral. My reading of Kissinger has been confined to short op-ed pieces and one academic article about nuclear strategy. I have a book that he edited about nuclear strategy. Actually, I am now conjuring up a vague memory of a diavlog that occurred a while back in

Quoting ledocs: I can't tell if you're being ironic about Kissinger. Kissinger is smart, but highly amoral. My reading of Kissinger has been confined to short op-ed pieces and one academic article about nuclear strategy. I have a book that he edited about nuclear strategy..

Smart and amoral people are necessary in diplomacy. Was I being ironic? No, but I agree that Kissinger's role in Vietnam was ambiguous. I think he knew that the war was a blunder and that his job was to bring it to an end "with honor." Had he served under a president less prone to paranoia than Nixon, would he have been more successful? Hard to say. Let's give him credit for one thing: He was reviled and loathed by the American right and the future neocons because of détente with Russia and the opening to China.

Quoting ledocs: Actually, I am now conjuring up a vague memory of a diavlog that occurred a while back in which some old lion of PoliSci or IR was talking about the state of these fields as it relates to government. I think it was Joseph Nye, maybe, talking to Drezner? Anyway, the point the old lion made was that serving

Yes, I remember that diavlog. "Soft power" was one of those idiotic ideas of the 1990s . McDonalds and Hollywood = world peace.

This seems like an unhelpful caricature of the soft power idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power I don't think Volcker is senile, and I'm glad that he has emerged, because he has been pulled, from the woodwork. Obama really screwed up "the optics" of his handling of the financial crisis, and the substance hasn't been too great either.

Here is another reading of Obama's political crisis. The crisis, which consists primarily in losing the 60th vote in the senate, had many proximate causes, but not the least important was the poor optics in the handling of the financial crisis. I believe that the poor handling of the financial crisis is due primarily to the outsized influence of Wall Street in financing Obama's presidential campaigns, past and future, as well as to the influence of Wall Street within the administration itself. The recent Supreme Court decision makes it clear that the Democrats had little choice but to get into bed with Wall Street. It's pony up or get out of the game. We have two parties, but they are both completely beholden to Wall Street. Chuck Schumer, in particular, is completely in the pocket of Wall Street, and he is very influential in getting campaign money nationally. The big investment banks, which used to be private partnerships, are now public corporations, which means that they fall directly under the purview of this new Supreme Court decision. It's not just that the Senate is a highly unrepresentative body with too much

Quoting ledocs: This seems like an unhelpful caricature of the soft power idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power.

Is it? Soft power seems to me an oxymoron. The same idea was current in the 18th century---le doux commerce. See Albert Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests. True, international trade makes nations "gentler" and more willing to cooperate, and NGOs play a more important role than they did in the past, but in the end what is foreign policy all about? The relationship between states and governments, war and peace.

Quoting ledocs: I don't think Volcker is senile, and I'm glad that he has emerged, because he has been pulled, from the woodwork. Obama really screwed up "the optics" of his handling of the financial crisis, and the substance hasn't been too great either.

I'm not sure what he is supposed to symbolize. Was he hauled back on stage to show banks and Wall Street that Obama is serious about regulating them? Or to prepare Americans for the rise in interest rates that is inevitable? I wonder if the latter is even possible.

Yeah, Volcker has been brought back onstage to threaten Wall Street, with what exactly, we don't know yet, but possibly with legislation that will divorce investment banking from institutions that receive deposits, with legislation about executive pay, with legislation about the tax treatment of hedge fund profits, with legislation about the credit rating agencies, with legislation about transparency and derivatives, the list of things that could be done is long. I don't think it has anything to do with interest rates. The Fed can raise short-term rates any time it wants to do so. Long-term rates will rise if and when the US and global economy pick up. On this soft power thing, let's just look at US-France relations. Is there any realistic possibility that the US and France would go to war, or that the US and the EU, as led by France and Germany, would go to war? I have been amazed, since moving to France, to discover how popular US country music is among the French working class. I think there are country dance clubs in virtually every French provincial outpost. I was totally unaware of this. And the same thing is true in Germany. So, quite apart from the relative

Quoting ledocs: On this soft power thing, let's just look at US-France relations. Is there any realistic possibility that the US and France would go to war, or that the US and the EU, as led by France and Germany, would go to war?.

As a matter of fact, France is the only European country of any importance which has never been at war with the United States. And it is highly unlikely, I agree, that the EU will be at war with the US at any time in the immediate future. But this has nothing to do with things like country music in French and German villages (I think you are exaggerating there....), or McDonalds or Hollywood. It is the result of two world wars, alliances like NATO, and a common cultural and political history that goes back many centuries.

Well, we'll have to disagree here. Back around whenever Lester Thurow wrote "The Zero-Sum Society," let's say 1978-1982 (the book was published in 1980), there was more talk among the foreign policy establishment about tensions between Europe and the US, due primarily to economic competition. Even now, there is always talk to the effect that Russia belongs in Europe. Europe could be pulled eastwards rather than westwards. Europe has proved to be far less unified politically so far than was thought to be likely in 1980. Anyway, things change, and economic competition between Europe and the US could definitely increase, competition for resources probably will increase, Europe could be pulled closer to some combination of Russia, India, and China and away from the US, and wars on the periphery of spheres of influence between Europe and the US cannot be ruled out in the future. Nuclear war seems less likely. But cultural affinities between the US and Europe, and France and Germany in particular, would act as mitigating factors here, that's my contention. As regards the popularity of US country music in France and Germany, I suspect that you don't get into the provinces that much. Do some research. I'll wager that

Quoting Francoamerican: As a matter of fact, France is the only European country of any importance which has never been at war with the United States.

And it is highly unlikely, I agree, that the EU will be at war with the US at any time in the immediate future. But this has nothing to do with things like country music in French and German villages (I think you are exaggerating there....), or McDonalds or Hollywood. It is the result of two world wars, alliances like NATO, and a common cultural and political history that goes back many centuries.

And neither of us has much oil left.

Quoting ledocs: Here is another reading of Obama's political crisis. The crisis, which consists primarily in losing the 60th vote in the senate, had many proximate causes, but not the least important was the poor optics in the handling of the financial crisis. I believe that the poor handling of the financial crisis is due primarily to the outsized influence of Wall Street in financing Obama's presidential campaigns, past and future, as well as to the influence of Wall Street within the administration itself. The recent Supreme Court decision makes it clear that the Democrats had little choice but to get into bed with Wall Street. It's pony up or get out of the game. We have two parties, but they are both completely beholden to Wall Street. Chuck Schumer, in particular, is completely in the pocket of Wall Street, and he is very influential in getting campaign money nationally. The big investment banks, which used to be private partnerships, are now public corporations, which means that they fall directly under the purview of this new Supreme Court decision.

It's not just that the Senate is a highly unrepresentative body with too much

The crisis is that the nation can't seem to do much domestically, because legislation of any importance is very difficult to pass. On the other hand, making war is comparatively easy, so far. This is a recipe for disaster. It suggests that wars will be used as the only outlet for domestic problems.

Shorter Francoamerican:

Rumsfeld/Palin 2012!

;^)

Quoting ledocs: The crisis is that the nation can't seem to do much domestically, because legislation of any importance is very difficult to pass. On the other hand, making war is comparatively easy, so far. This is a recipe for disaster. It suggests that wars will be used as the only outlet for domestic problems.

I agree with you 100%.

Quoting bjkeefe: No. I might have said it was understandable for Al Gore to emphasize worst-case projections in his movie, but I would never have said it was okay to exaggerate evidence. As the pit bull CEO I used to work for would frequently bellow, "Don't tell the data. Let the data tell you."

Brendan: I don't begrudge Al Gore anything he gets out of this, in any case. We have him to thank for waking up millions of people who won't learn anything unless it's spoon-fed to them. And if Gore hyperbolized a little to make that happen, again I say, so what. It had to happen. Too many people won't sit still for nuance. You want Joe Six-Pack to buy your brand of beer, you have to suggest that doing so is going to get him laid. By twins.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...9&postcount=78

Brendan: Gore's arguments aren't for people who read scientific journals. Come the revolution, only those of us who do will get to vote. Until then, you have to put the fodder where the cattle can reach it if you want them to eat.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...ht=nuts&page=3

I'm not. If I were (one of) the cattle, I'd be falling for the nonsense pisc and harkin are pushing, where they have

Quoting look: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...9&postcount=78

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...ht=nuts&page=3

I don't see anything there that supports your accusation that I "said that it was ok to exaggerate the climate evidence."

I disagree with your assessment of pisc and harkin, ...

Color me shocked.

... and if there are any resentments, they're fueled by your sophomoric name-calling.

In the first place, when I was speaking of "resentments," I was speaking of the bizarre hatred harkin, pisc, and people like them display concerning smart liberal policy makers in general and Al Gore in particular. But as far as my supposed contribution to their resentments goes, do you really think I started calling harkin and pisc denialists, etc., out of the clear blue sky, and that only then did they start furiously searching for cherries and holding them up as though they represented the whole pie? Or do you suppose I might have had some reason for labeling them as I have, in response to what they posted to begin with?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0dm2gdeX4
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...change-scandal

The thing about Murari Lal's admission to the Daily Mail sounds pretty bad, especially if you only quote the lede. However, you should be aware of the Daily Mail's track record on this issue -- they're notoriously a denialist outfit -- and you

Quoting bjkeefe: ... In the first place, when I was speaking of "resentments," I was speaking of the bizarre hatred harkin, pisc, and people like them display concerning smart liberal policy makers in general and Al Gore in particular...

BJ Again with the accusations of hate! I don't know those man I can't hate them. I think they are sincere in their beliefs to the point of at best manipulating the data to fit their beliefs with evidence mounting that they have done more than that. They take in millions preaching the pseudoscience, of computer models, and are apparently in collusion to suppress the science that conflicts with their holy grail. As an aside: While I can't vouch for all that harkin has written here I am fairly confident that it is neither harkin nor myself that are the ones that use disparagement, slander and language of hate on this subject.

Quoting piscivorous: BJ

Again with the accusations of hate! I don't know those man I can't hate them. I think they are sincere in their beliefs to the point of at best manipulating the data to fit their beliefs with evidence mounting that they have done more than that. They take in millions preaching the pseudoscience, of computer models, and are apparently in collusion to suppress the science that conflicts with their holy grail.

As an aside: While I can't vouch for all that harkin has written here I am fairly confident that it is neither harkin nor myself that are the ones that use disparagement, slander and language of hate on this subject.

I'll grant harkin is, especially lately, more over the top than you as far as expressing sheer hatred goes. As to the rest of what you say, I think you only underscore my assessment of your attitude on this issue as it pertains to those who are telling you things you would like not to believe.

It is I who reacts in a cretinous manner at things they don't like to hear because it is against their beliefs? Your sense of humor is improving at least.

Quoting piscivorous: It is I who reacts in a cretinous manner at things they don't like to hear because it is against their beliefs? Your sense of humor is improving at least.

You can keep trying to go the false equivalence route, pisc, but it's not impressive. I don't just have a "belief" here, unless you also want to say my views on the shape of the Earth and the arrangement of the solar system are just a "belief" because I have confidence in the overwhelming scientific consensus on things I can't personally verify. It is you who has nothing more than a belief, and I must say, your last post is about half a roll of tin foil away from full metal conspiracy thinking. P.S. For the record, you said cretinous, not I. But thanks for the honesty, however Freudian it might have been.

"It is I who reacts in a cretinous manner...? I don't understand how you can confuse, what is obviously a critique of your comment style, as a personal attack.

Quoting piscivorous: "It is I who reacts in a cretinous manner...? I don't understand how you can confuse, what is obviously a critique of your comment style, as a personal attack.

Rest easy: I didn't take it as a personal attack.

[quote=bjkeefe;148270]Shorter Francoamerican:/QUOTE] You completely misunderstood, or I expressed myself poorly. I was distinguishing France, UK, Germany, Italy and Spain from the other smaller European countries. Importance, in international relations, is a relative notion: it depends on population, economy, military might etc. The United States wasn't considered an important player in international relations until after WW I. The US has been at war with Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain but never with France.

Quoting ledocs: Well, we'll have to disagree here. Back around whenever Lester Thurow wrote "The Zero-Sum Society," let's say 1978-1982 (the book was published in 1980), there was more talk among the foreign policy establishment about tensions between Europe and the US, due primarily to economic competition. Even now, there is always talk to the effect that Russia belongs in Europe. Europe could be pulled eastwards rather than westwards. Europe has proved to be far less unified politically so far than was thought to be likely in 1980. Anyway, things change, and economic competition between Europe and the US could definitely increase, competition for resources probably will increase, Europe could be pulled closer to some combination of Russia, India, and China and away from the US, and wars on the periphery of spheres of influence between Europe and the US cannot be ruled out in the future. Nuclear war seems less likely. But cultural affinities between the US and Europe, and France and Germany in particular, would act as mitigating factors here, that's my contention. .

I agree that at present nuclear or any other kind of war between European countries and the US is so improbable as to seem impossible. I just disagree

Quoting claymisher: And neither of us has much oil left.

Very true. At least that is my opinion. And I wonder how friendly nations will be when they are all scrambling for a scarce resource.

Quoting ledocs: The crisis is that the nation can't seem to do much domestically, because legislation of any importance is very difficult to pass. On the other hand, making war is comparatively easy, so far. This is a recipe for disaster. It suggests that wars will be used as the only outlet for domestic problems.

So country music, big macs and infantile Hollywood blockbusters like Avatar are not enough to tame the beast?

Franco said:

I agree that at present nuclear or any other kind of war between European countries and the US is so improbable as to seem impossible. I just disagree with the widespread idea that economic forces and cultural exchanges necessarily lead to peace by making people "more alike."

But who said anything about "necessarily?" I spoke of mitigating factors. I don't know anything about the soft power literature. But I strongly suspect that the people who promulgated this idea, including Joseph Nye, are very familiar with realist thinking and had no intention of abandoning it is as the controlling paradigm in foreign relations. I think we're talking about tweaking the controlling paradigm. So my suspicion is still that you have a highly caricatured view of what is at issue. I mean, I'm sure that Nye's view was never that the US military budget could or should be cut to European military spending levels in order that the US should concentrate on cultural exports. Isn't it the case that until the financial crisis of 2008-2009 Europe was, in fact, becoming somewhat more Americanized, i.e. somewhat more free market-oriented? And couldn't it be the case that, if that's true, some of this

So it occurred to me, having written the prior post, that one prominent exponent of soft power was probably Fukuyama in his "end of history" article, which is easily caricatured. So here he gives an interview which tends to corroborate my intuition that soft power is not intended to substitute for hard power, the two are complementary. Another proviso is that I suspect that Fukuyama is sort of vulgarizing the original soft power idea here. Here, it's just a way of saying that the US has relied too much on military threats and interventions in its foreign policy. http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/20.../fukuyama.html

Quoting ledocs: But who said anything about "necessarily?" I spoke of mitigating factors. I don't know anything about the soft power literature. But I strongly suspect that the people who promulgated this idea, including Joseph Nye, are very familiar with realist thinking and had no intention of abandoning it is as the controlling paradigm in foreign relations. I think we're talking about tweaking the controlling paradigm. So my suspicion is still that you have a highly caricatured view of what is at issue. I mean, I'm sure that Nye's view was never that the US military budget could or should be cut to European military spending levels in order that the US should concentrate on cultural exports..

It is easy to caricature a view like "soft power" as an instrument of foreign policy and diplomacy because it means so little. The United States is not going to improve its relations with other states, or to persuade other states to do as it wishes, by relying on trade, culture, Disneyworld and who knows what else Nye had in mind. But the alternative isn't military force, for God's sake! I never said that and certainly have never thought that the use

In what sense is "entrepreneurial" culture an anglo-saxon thing? You sound like G W Bush....

In the sense that it's easier to start a small business in the US or Britain than in France due both to the regulatory regimes and the tax regimes. You're the only thinking person in France who appears to think that "Anglo-Saxon" has no meaning in the socio-economic realm. It's one of the most common phrases used on political chat shows in France. It stands for less regulation and lower taxes (as you well know). And what I meant when I said that globalization will force the US and France to converge in the middle somewhere was that the US will need higher taxes, a bigger welfare state, and more regulation than it currently has and that France will need less of all of the above. And that process of reduction will represent an Anglo-Saxon influence upon French society, and it will have been understood as such by most French intellectuals and businessmen themselves. Further, some part of this adjustment will have been attributable to "soft power," I suspect, but I would prefer to do more reading about that before

Actually the United States has warred with France... remember mon frere the XYZ Affair?

The XYZ Affair is a diplomatic episode that soured relations between France and the United States and led to an undeclared naval war called the Quasi War; it took place from March of 1797 to 1800.

Three French agents, publicly referred to as X, Y, and Z, but later revealed as Jean Conrad Hottinguer, Pierre Bellamy and Lucien Hauteval, demanded major concessions from the United States as a condition for continuing bilateral peace negotiations. The concessions demanded by the French included 50,000 pounds sterling, a $10 million loan from the United States, a $250,000 personal bribe to French foreign minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, and a formal apology for comments made by U.S. President John Adams.

The demand came during a meeting in Paris between the French agents and a three member American commission consisting of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry. Several weeks prior to the meeting with X, Y, and Z, the American commission had met with French foreign minister Talleyrand to discuss French retaliation to the Jay Treaty, which they perceived as evidence of an Anglo-American alliance. The French seized nearly

Quoting ledocs: In the sense that it's easier to start a small business in the US or Britain than in France due to both to the regulatory regimes and the tax regimes. You're the only thinking person in France who appears to think that "Anglo-Saxon" has no meaning in the socio-economic realm. It's one of the most common phrases used on political chat shows in France. It stands for less regulation and lower taxes. And what I meant when I said that globalization will force the US and France to converge in the middle somewhere was that the US will need higher taxes, a bigger welfare state, and more regulation than it currently has and that France will need less of all of the above. And that process of reduction will represent an Anglo-Saxon influence upon French society, and it will have been understood as such by most French intellectuals and businessmen themselves. Further, some part of this adjustment will have been attributable to "soft power," I suspect, but I would prefer to do more reading about that before saying anything more about it. .

The French have been talking about the "anglo-saxons" since WW I and

Quoting Francoamerican: ... infantile Hollywood blockbusters like Avatar are not enough to tame the beast?

I think Franco is trying to test the durability of the peace between France and the US. ;-)

Thank you Lyle for reminding me of the well named "quasi war." Still, the French never marched on Washington and burnt down the White House like the Brits.... Come to think of it, there was almost another quasi war with France when the Emperor Maxmilian III (?) was overthrown in Mexico by the nefarious Napoleon III under the Second Empire. I forget the details.

Yeah, the Confederacy was hopeful France would come to it's aid, especially since it had troops in Mexico. The U.S. sent arms and even a few people to help the Mexicans out against Napoleon III after the Civil War played out. French Mexico was also a refuge for ex-Confederates. The French were also the bad guys in the French and Indian War.

I really fail to see what business practices, anglo-saxon or not, have to do with the influence of the American state on the French state. That is what soft power is all about.

Wasn't one of the main ideas of the European economic union to avoid war, that states which were closely bound commercially were less likely to go to war with one another? Similarly, if there is convergence in social welfare benefits among states, war seems less likely to me. If the United States treated its poor better, I know there would be less hostility to the US in France or in Europe generally. This all seems pretty straightforward to me. I can't believe that you just said that you don't see what business practices have to do with relations, and hence influence-wielding, among states. I guess I will have to read a lot more history to figure that one out. Don't EU anti-trust rulings against Microsoft have an effect on relations between EU member states and the US government? Don't restrictions, or lack thereof, on foreign investment have an effect on relations between states? Competition among arms producers for foreign markets? By the way, it can't be irrelevant, or maybe

Among my favorite journalists as well. Enjoyed the conversation immensely. Thank you!!

Quoting ledocs: Wasn't one of the main ideas of the European economic union to avoid war, that states which were closely bound commercially were less likely to go to war with one another? Similarly, if there is convergence in social welfare benefits among states, war seems less likely to me. If the United States treated its poor better, I know there would be less hostility to the US in France or in Europe generally. This all seems pretty straightforward to me..

Sorry, but I see no connection at all between social welfare provisions and the relations between states. Your last statment makes no sense to me. The hostility of Europeans to the US that we have seen in recent years was the direct consequence of the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East (just as in an earlier period it was a reaction to Vietnam). It had nothing to do with the well-known differences between their economies. Besides, most (western) Europeans probably think that they are better off than Americans. You are right about the idea behind the EU.

Quoting ledocs: I can't believe that you just said that you don't see what

On the welfare state thing, I think what I said makes perfect sense. Assume that Mexico has the same GDP per capita as the US, comparable population, comparable military, but a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income than the US, as well as very generous universal retirement and health benefits. I contend that, given this hypothetical, Mexico and the United States are more likely to engage in armed conflict than if Mexico and the United States are very similar in their socio-economic arrangements. At the very least, assuming that "the states," i.e. the governing elites and armies, have their own reasons for entering into conflict, the existence of very different social conditions can be used and will be used for propaganda purposes to gin up war fever. I think that the depiction of the US govt's response to Katrina probably had a pronounced effect on French attitudes to the US, both among elites and among the general populace.

You are the one who said that anglo-saxon business practices are so much better!

No, I did not say that. I said that there were lower barriers to entry for small business in the Anglo-Saxon world and that the

Quoting ledocs: On the welfare state thing, I think what I said makes perfect sense. Assume that Mexico has the same GDP per capita as the US, comparable population, comparable military, but a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income than the US, as well as very generous universal retirement and health benefits. I contend that, given this hypothetical, Mexico and the United States are more likely to engage in armed conflict than if Mexico and the United States are very similar in their socio-economic arrangements. At the very least, assuming that "the states," i.e. the governing elites and armies, have their own reasons for entering into conflict, the existence of very different social conditions can be used and will be used for propaganda purposes to gin up war fever. I think that the depiction of the US govt's response to Katrina probably had a pronounced effect on French attitudes to the US, both among elites and among the general populous..

As a student of history (admittedly only an amateur) I find your hypothesis unreal. I can't think of any actual examples of conflict that would corroborate your scenario. If you take the period, say, between the Napoleonic Wars and the present, you

The more similar countries are in their economic and social arrangements, the less likely they will be to go to war. Is that a fair summary?

Yes, that's completely fair. Isn't this hypothesis sort of an implied corollary of the European economic union also? Isn't it the hope that over the course of time the EU countries with lowest GDP will come to resemble Germany in GDP per capita, but everything that happens within the EU happens within an overall umbrella goal of avoiding war between or among members? Put it this way. The union is more fragile, as can be seen in the case of Greece, the more socio-economic conditions of member states diverge. The extreme case is that Greece is expelled. If Greece is expelled, the likelihood of war between Greece and another EU country at the periphery increases, according to me, if only marginally. That is sort of a logical implication of at least the perceived goal of the union. Note that my claim is not that strong. I only say that socio-economic similarity makes war less likely, not that it makes it impossible. And I don't say that socio-economic dissimilarity leads to war in

Quoting ledocs: Yes, that's completely fair. Isn't this hypothesis sort of an implied corollary of the European economic union also? Isn't it the hope that over the course of time the EU countries with lowest GDP will come to resemble Germany in GDP per capita, but everything that happens within the EU happens within an overall umbrella goal of avoiding war between or among members? Put it this way. The union is more fragile, as can be seen in the case of Greece, the more socio-economic conditions of member states diverge. The extreme case is that Greece is expelled. If Greece is expelled, the likelihood of war between Greece and another EU country at the periphery increases, according to me, if only marginally. That is sort of a logical implication of at least the perceived goal of the union. .

The original intention of the founders of the Common Market was to settle once and for all the German-French problem, to make war impossible between the two largest continental military powers, which had been in a state of permanent hostility since 1870 (in fact since the Napoleonic wars). Trade was to be the instrument of peace. Eventually the

I don't think anyone has ever thought that wars arise out of economic inequality per se.

Well, it depends upon what you mean by per se. Surely, many colonial wars or invasions by superior military powers arise, in a certain sense, because of economic inequality. But maybe you mean that they don't arise from concerns by one country about the distribution of wealth and income in another country. I don't even know if that's true. Certainly concerns about the distribution of wealth in another country must often have been adduced as a justification for war. "So and so is an autocrat who has been plundering the people. We must depose him and create a more democratic regime in which all citizens can share in the country's wealth." I'm a very poor historian, but I'm reasonably confident that one could find quotations in which proponents of the US invasion of Iraq cited a more just distribution of wealth in post-Saddam Iraq as a reason for invading.

Quoting ledocs: Well, it depends upon what you mean by per se. Surely, many colonial wars or invasions by superior military powers arise, in a certain sense, because of economic inequality.

But maybe you mean that they don't arise from concerns by one country about the distribution of wealth and income in another country. I don't even know if that's true. Certainly concerns about the distribution of wealth in another country must often have been adduced as a justification for war. "So and so is an autocrat who has been plundering the people. We must depose him and create a more democratic regime in which all citizens can share in the country's wealth." I'm a very poor historian, but I'm reasonably confident that one could find quotations in which proponents of the US invasion of Iraq cited a more just distribution of wealth in post-Saddam Iraq as a reason for invading.

No doubt. People say bizarre things. But under international law there are only so many "just" reasons (justifications) for war. A more equitable distribution of wealth isn't one of them, and never has been. If it were, maybe some coalition of nations should declare war

How did we get from a discussion of what actually causes wars to a discussion of what constitutes a casus belli under international law? My point, the one you were disputing, was that distribution of wealth, as a proxy for communitarian values, could be a cause for war. There must have been recent wars in Africa in which one country invades another, the goal of achieving a more equal distribution of wealth in the invaded country is one of the avowed reasons for the war on the part of the invading country, and a more equal distribution of wealth was not just a pretext for the war but was really one of the primary motivating factors behind the war. International law never once entered my mind until you brought it up just now. It seems odd to have done that, because first you adduced a taxonomy of six kinds of war from the past, but presumably that had little to do with international law, so now you're talking about recent wars and wars of the future, in which international law might be more important. But

Quoting ledocs: How did we get from a discussion of what actually causes wars to a discussion of what constitutes a casus belli under international law? My point, the one you were disputing, was that distribution of wealth, as a proxy for communitarian values, could be a cause for war. There must have been recent wars in Africa in which one country invades another, the goal of achieving a more equal distribution of wealth in the invaded country is one of the avowed reasons for the war on the part of the invading country, and a more equal distribution of wealth was not just a pretext for the war but was really one of the primary motivating factors behind the war..

More equal distribution of wealth could be a cause? There must have been recent wars in Africa in which a more equal distribution of wealth was the justification? You are just spinning empty hypotheses. I can't think of any reason why one country should want to go to war, risking the lives of its own citizens, in order to ensure a more equal distribution of wealth

But you believe that correcting economic inequality is, or could be, or must be one of the reasons (justifications) for going to war. So apparently future international law will have to take that into account.

I believe only that it could be in the future (actually, not legally) and probably has been (actually, not legally). I never said or implied anything about "must be." You're again confusing descriptive hypotheses of mine with normative ones. I could see why that happened in the case of conditions for starting a small business in France, but I don't see why it's happening again now. Nothing I have said implies that international law should take account of distribution of wealth as a possible legal cause for war. But to tell the truth, there are extreme circumstances I can imagine in which I might favor such a revision of international law. But let's not go there. But, you know, one can imagine a horrible kleptocracy that pretty much has to go, and the legal reasons for invasion and overthrow of that country might be vaguer than "distribution of wealth," say "unmistakable violations of human dignity," or more specific, but that's what the war is really

Quoting ledocs: I believe only that it could be in the future (actually, not legally) and probably has been (actually, not legally). I never said or implied anything about "must be." You're again confusing descriptive hypotheses of mine with normative ones. I could see why that happened in the case of conditions for starting a small business in France, but I don't see why it's happening again now. Nothing I have said implies that international law should take account of distribution of wealth as a possible legal cause for war. But to tell the truth, there are extreme circumstances I can imagine in which I might favor such a revision of international law. But let's not go there. But, you know, one can imagine a horrible kleptocracy that pretty much has to go, and the legal reasons for invasion and overthrow of that country might be vaguer than "distribution of wealth," say "unmistakable violations of human dignity," or more specific, but that's what the war is really about. So I can imagine a "humanitarian war" undertaken to overthrow a kleptocracy.

The original hypothesis was that two countries that might become belligerents under normal Realpolitik considerations, two countries more or less similarly situated, except

Quoting bjkeefe: ... you should be aware of the Daily Mail's track record on this issue -- they're notoriously a denialist outfit ...

"Daily Mail caught in another lie." (h/t: Scott Lemieux)

Quoting bjkeefe: "Daily Mail caught in another lie."

Besides Putz, another of the wingnut bloggers to swallow this one and regurgitate it: Ann Althouse. (via CJ).

Quoting bjkeefe: "Daily Mail caught in another lie."

(h/t: Scott Lemieux)

This has been the dominant story on Memeorandum all day. And it will now become a new permanent talking point for the wingnuts, lunatics, and conservatives, who always hear the lies (and repeat them years after they are debunked), and never hear the corrections, or when they do hear the corrections, reject them as part of "the hoax." Stupid people have a lot of power.

Quoting bjkeefe: Besides Putz, another of the wingnut bloggers to swallow this one and regurgitate it: Ann Althouse. (via CJ).

No, not Althouse! She's "not a conservative," but "a moderate," and "a life long Democrat." Everyone who's never read her blog knows that!

Quoting TwinSwords: This has been the dominant story on Memeorandum all day. And it will now become a new permanent talking point for the wingnuts, lunatics, and conservatives, who always hear the lies (and repeat them years after they are debunked), and never hear the corrections, or when they do hear the corrections, reject them as part of "the hoax."

Stupid people have a lot of power.

Heh. Right you are. This ... ... is still at the top of the home page. It's kind of funny -- you can almost guarantee how inaccurate a story will turn out to be by how many links it gets from the wingnutosphere.

Quoting TwinSwords: No, not Althouse! She's "not a conservative," but "a moderate," and "a life long Democrat." Everyone who's never read her blog knows that!

Correct! And here to prove it (via) is someone else who has read her blog!

Quoting bjkeefe: Correct! And here to prove it (via) is someone else who has read her blog!

Moar:

For "dishonest and stupid" we of course have Ann Althouse, who is caught up as usual in a vortex of self-righteous ignorant bullshit: