'The Punch' from Jersey Shore Reality show http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_388203.html

c'mon!! jonah goldberg? on health care? after j. klein and frum on health care? i've got better things to do with my time.

I think us conservatives believe that people consiously choose to do bad things. ( and good things ) That society and circumstance don't have as much of an effect on people as liberals believe. Reapplying Milton Friedman's words, everyone is free to choose. Choices to do bad are made to achieve some sort of satisfaction w/o regard to the consequences on others. Murderers kill for the thrill, out of hatred, to make money or achieve some other gain. People engage in serial bankrupcty because they know they can get away with it and have no remorse over stealing from debt issuers.

I know liberal's books were selling pretty good during the Bush years. Were the authors getting a $million advance on their books like Jonah is reportedly getting. ( that sure was a million dollar grin on his face when the topic was discussed. ) Can the level of book sales and advances by the party out of power be used to measure their success in the next election?

The politicians you like so much don't either.

"so what... there might have been some people in the north who agreed with the position of the south... blah blah blah" i mean really....? this is justification for ignoring Bob's argument? Both Hitchens and Goldberg are expert at creating arguments that are logically consistent, and thus hold your attention, but on further reflection are always either ridiculous or completely trivial.

golfer who has an affair = a moral crisis for humanity politicians blatantly lying to the citizenry on a daily basis = just the nature of politics and people understand this... hardball For the sake of civilization we'd better make sure the elite behave morally in public! They better not start killing people in wars... that dumb mob might get the wrong idea! They better not sell out their principles for the sake of short term gains! To think what would happen if elites started behaving immorally in public! We'd have a serious crime problem in this country wouldn't we???

Jonah, you can't hide your Nonzero eyes!

Yeah? You and what airforce? heh heh.. sorry.

Politically, I disagree with Jonah on pretty much everything. His pseudo-academic book planted the seeds that Glen Beck has absurdly harvested. But I think he's really good at cultural commentary! The stuff on celebrities and reality TV was great.

Goldberg stated that societal civilization begins to deteriorate when elites starts to ape the morals & mores of the common people. This is quite interesting. Is this not the very essence of contemporary American conservative thought & movement? The whole anti-intelectually thrust of the modern Republican party it seem to me is rotted in this very idea. I was waiting for Bob to broach this topic and a little disappointed when he let Goldberg prattle on about the supposed dysfunction within the black community. For a movement and party that saddled the country with a Sarah Palin and attempted to sell her dysfunctional family & way of life as the norm, it takes super human nerves & total lack of self aware or both to make such comment without noticing the self directed irony.

Quoting newdome: Goldberg stated that societal civilization begins to deteriorate when elites starts to ape the morals & mores of the common people. This is quite interesting. Is this not the very essence of contemporary American conservative thought & movement? The whole anti-intelectually thrust of the modern Republican party it seem to me is rotted in this very idea. I was waiting for Bob to broach this topic and a little disappointed when he let Goldberg prattle on about the supposed dysfunction within the black community. For a movement and party that saddled the country with a Sarah Palin and attempted to sell her dysfunctional family & way of life as the norm, it takes super human nerves & total lack of self aware or both to make such comment without noticing the self directed irony.

Actually your perception of that piece of the diavlog is one seen through blue tinted glasses but the main reason I am responding is try and get a definition of what you consider to be a "dysfunctional family."

Good exchange: I liked it a lot. A few quick comments: 1. Goldberg did a good job of eviscerating the Fort Hood op ed of Wright with plain spoken, to the point arguments. 2. For the first time in a while Wright commendably was not shrieking or giving any indication of jumping out of his skin. Why I wonder? 3. It took a couple of guys, and especially Wright, who are not "sports writers" like the last two guys, Lipsyte and Curtiss, who reminds me of Howdy Doody, to come to deeper grips with the Tiger Woods thing. And Wright emitted a laser that cut through so much ridiculous commentary that is really a continuation of tabloidism parading as news or analysis. Firstly he aptly touched on the absolutely inner toughness and focus displayed by Woods at his best--his inner game of golf. Secondly he noted the balletic gracefulness, power and fluidity of the athleticism in Tiger's game. And thirdly, and most significantly, he, to my mind, offered the most profound and mature counsel to Tiger, which, no doubt, never will be heeded: the advice for Tiger to get stoical, decorporatize himself, return with pure singularity to his calling—golf and heal his soul. Compare this

It's been my experience that if you see a man with a moustache like Jonah's got, the odds are at least 10 to 1 that he's a Republican. I wonder why this is.

Quoting basman: Good exchange: I liked it a lot.
...
Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

Have not watched this one yet...probably will now. The notions you pointed out that Wright had concerning Woods were insightful. Made me think of the Mark Frost's books about Bobby Jones and Francis Ouimet (and Harry Vardon). Sure a different time, amateurs, and no multi-million dollar Nike contracts but gentlemen all...whose integrity was not something they teed up. I could be wrong (what are the odds) but his future (not his future as a great golfer) depends on his wife's forgiveness and his earning it. Unfortunately, he is about 10 over par.

I really liked how Bob was able to get Jonah to explain why Jonah wanted Health Care reform to pass and fail (and kill Americans), and then smoothly compared it to the Right's critique of the objections to the Iraq war, in which Liberals wanted to see body bags and Americans die in the fight, and American lose the war, to advance a political end. Is Bob doing this because he thinks this objection is right? Or is there some super high level critique of the right here in which the right projects it's faults on the left. Of course they think the left 'wanted' Americans to lose in Iraq, because the right 'wants' Americans to lose when the liberals try to do something. Was there some blog conversation recently on this at some level, that makes this more clear? ===
At the end of it though, Goldbert talks about 'wanting republicans to make more hail marry passes'
Didn't Clive Cook or someone recently have a really good blog post on home runs versus short plays, and that in the long run things like Failing to get Social

Bob's "do you really think so?" on Jonah's explanation that health care is just another foot-in-the-door scheme to make more and more people clients of the state (and in effect, buy votes) is staggering in its myopia. Ya think? And public opinion is only tyrannical when it reflects Americans' faith (fading fast) in Democrats ability to administrate, control costs and fulfill their promises as just about every study (on the various plans and the promises of cost-cutting) shows they are incompetent liars? Where was Bob and his disbelief in poll numbers when every liberal touting the plan was waving around the specious '80% want it' claim that was wrong when it was first uttered and is ridiculous now? The only thing more disingenuous is the "hundreds of thousands will die" tripe. And is Bob really condemning the American public (being polled) for not knowing what's in the bill when Dick Durbin and other democrats (who weren't shut out of the process as republicans were) admitted this week that even they don't know what's in the bill? Bob, the reason Obamacare is tanking in the polls is because Americans look

We should be grateful to the American Muslim population that there have not been more Maj Hasans??????? Grateful? As in, it would be justified but they somehow held back their wrath at criminal America? Horse pucky. Should we be grateful that US Army troops didn't go fire on mosques in reponse? Should we be grateful that Christians didn't go out in groups looking for Muslims to shoot? If not, why? What is different? That one sentence validates everything Jonah said regarding Chris Matthews, Martha Raditz et al after Ft Hood.

Is Jonah getting paid in cash or gold?

Quoting BlueberrySky: "so what... there might have been some people in the north who agreed with the position of the south... blah blah blah" i mean really....? this is justification for ignoring Bob's argument?

Bob's argument that fighting them over there results in blowback somewhere else has merit. But it is obviously not a strategy that prevents 9/11 and the many terror attacks in the 1990s. The US has to withdraw support of Israel, Saudi Arabia and likely many other governments in the Muslim world to be safe from terror attacks.

Quoting kezboard: It's been my experience that if you see a man with a moustache like Jonah's got, the odds are at least 10 to 1 that he's a Republican......

or has a cleft palate.

Quoting claymisher: I'm going to pretend this doesn't exist and just imagine a really good one with Heather Hurlburt and Andrew Bacevich instead.

Quoting ginger baker: c'mon!! jonah goldberg? on health care? after j. klein and frum on health care? i've got better things to do with my time.

Agreed. But out of respect for Bob, I gave this one a shot for as long as I could. Worst twenty-two minutes of my life.

We have a lot of data that reality shows are detrimental? Who the hell is doing research on that? People have way too much time on their hands. America needs to start making things again. Reality shows, talk radio, partisan commentators posing as newsmen, daily polls taking the pulse of the peeps....we are living in an Orwellian hell. BTW, the first reality show was An American Family

....we are living in an Orwellian hell.

Or maybe a Huxlian hell
http://www.recombinantrecords.net/do...-to-Death.html

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Or maybe a Huxlian hell
http://www.recombinantrecords.net/do...-to-Death.html

Hmmm...we just learned about Orwell and Huxley from a cartoon...

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Or maybe a Huxlian hell
http://www.recombinantrecords.net/do...-to-Death.html

Orwell and Huxley...two sides of the same coin.

I only got through about half of it but I actually didn't mind Jonah on this one (note: I skipped healthcare.) I think the Hasan discussion pretty much summed it up nicely. Conservatives will acknowledge that there is a cost of our policy choices (finally), but think that the morality of our intentions is such that they will deride anyone who even wants to take that into account (Bob.) I would love to hear a full diavlog on the concept of evil. Have even been thinking about a possible Appollo Project along those lines.

It is defiantly more the like the Huxley's world than Orwell's.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I only got through about half of it but I actually didn't mind Jonah on this one (note: I skipped healthcare.) I think the Hasan discussion pretty much summed it up nicely. Conservatives will acknowledge that there is a cost of our policy choices (finally), but think that the morality of our intentions is such that they will deride anyone who even wants to take that into account (Bob.)

I'm only through about half of it now, but plan to finish (I have to hear the reality show discussion, I'm weak). However, while Jonah just irritates me by his very nature, he was more tolerable than usual in this one. The Hasan discussion was actually pretty good and did a better job than the Hitchens one in elaborating on the differences. It's frustrating, though, in that it seems that people are consistently talking past each other. (I expect I'll have more to say on this; they weren't quite done, I don't think.)

I would love to hear a full diavlog on the concept of evil. Have even been thinking about a possible Appollo Project along those lines.

Agreed, although the way it was handled here was frustrating. This notion that

Hope this isn't autobiographical, boys.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Reapplying Milton Friedman's words, everyone is free to choose.

You're not talking about evil yet. The question of evil concerns causes. The concept of evil runs contrary to free will. Why did so-and-so kill his children? Because he is evil. Well; how did he get to be evil? By choosing to be evil. Why'd he choose to be evil? Because he's evil. People use the concept of evil as a way to end thinking about the reasons behind bad outcomes--and as a way to advance their own interests through scapegoating. For someone like Jonah, the concept of evil serves merely as foreplay for vengeance pornography. All he wants is the quickest possible path to dehumanization: he wants Hasan to be evil, so that he can punish and torture Hasan without repercussions. You can see how this parallels his eagerness for some sort of societal collapse to result from health care reform. He likes apocalypse pornography, too.

Harkin, Mr. Wright said "we should be grateful" FOR, not TO the Muslim community in the United States.

The most substantive point in this diavlog, and a crucial part of Bob's recent writing, is the argument that violence could flare up dramatically as the terrorist meme is spread via positive feedback. This calls for some reflection about the conditions required for positive feedback (in the language of engineering). The world is ruled, by and large, by negative feedback. Most actions are subject to some kind of opposition that keeps the action in check. The stability of the world around us (in all realms: mechanical, intellectual, social, and political) is the result of a multitude of negative feedback interactions. A positive feedback process has the precondition of an "excited state". By definition, there are few excited states in the world, because they quickly decay into stable states at the slightest perturbation. Bob needs an explanation of why we are may find ourselves in an unperturbed "excited state" with respect to Muslim/Western interaction. The Afghanistan war placed Maj. Hasan into an excited state, and the plan to deploy him overseas was the perturbation that caused his reaction. Fortunately, there is not yet a lot of evidence for a positive feedback cycle of violence. This is not

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think us conservatives believe that people consiously choose to do bad things.

I think everyone believes that people consciously choose to do bad things at times. That's not the issue, but distorts it. I'd argue that the traditional Christian way of looking at evil (given that that seems to be all mixed up in what people talk about when talking about the supposed conservative view) has two aspects which seem to me contrary to what Jonah seemed to be saying. First, that there is simply an irrational impulse toward the bad, that our desires to do bad are often not precisely the product of conscious choice. (You can see this, among other places, in St. Paul's "I do the things I do not want and not the things I want" -- paraphrased, obviously -- in the Letter to the Romans, and in St. Augustine's discussion of his youthful stealing of a fruit in Confessions. It's behind the development of the doctrine of original sin.) Second, that "evil" is, in fact, not a "thing" (as Jonah said conservatives believed) but the absence of good. Again, St. Augustine, among others, is pretty clear on this.

That society and circumstance don't have as much of an effect on people

Excellent Diavlog especially regarding Tiger Woods and the discussion on Hypocrisy.

Quoting Simon Willard: The lesson in all of this is that excited states can grow when populations are isolated from each other. A robust mixing of societies tends to wring out these instabilities before they grow to the level where positive feedback catastrophes can occur. Bob made this very point elsewhere in the diavlog, talking about the racism of clueless Europeans who have been living, longer than Americans, in largely homogeneous societies, and now find themselves engulfed in instability after significant migrations from the middle east.

So far clueless Europeans have done pretty well, all things considered. 3000 Americans lost their lives on September 11, 2001 because of the clueless policies of successive American administrations in the Middle East. The terrorist incidents that occurred in Europe subsequently (Madrid, London) were the direct consequence of clueless European leaders following in the footsteps of your clueless president. Instability in Europe? Perhaps you should venture outside of your clueless Boston suburb.

Jonah Goldberg is allowing himself to be held hostage by pronouncements from some cave in Tora Bora. He said (quoting Robert Gates) that if the US were to withdraw from Afghanistan that Osama Bin Laden would declare victory, just as he did when the US withdrew from Somalia. And this of course is correct. But Osama Bin Laden could declare victory as well if the US stays, pointing out that he has managed to tie down 160,000+ troops in a land war in Central Asia. The point here is that Osama Bin Laden can portray almost any US foreign policy commitment in the area as a victory for his side.
The clear implication of what Jonah Goldberg is saying here is he will not acknowledge that the US has prevailed unless Osama Bin Laden says that it has. So here's an idea: instead of being constrained by something that Osama Bin Laden might or might not say, how about if the US decides what sort of outcomes it desires given the resource and other constraints it faces, and fashions its policies accordingly?

Interesting comments, Simon Willard. Your statement that Muslim leaders in the U.S. have been infrequent in their condemnation of terrorism is just ridiculous, although I know it is a oft heard comment on the right. Some blame this phenomenon on the media not giving enough attention to Muslim condemnations of terrorism and extremism (so that most non-Muslims are not aware of Muslim leaders' frequent condemnation of terrorism/extremism), some would say those on the right disingenuously repeat this statement for their own reasons. I am sure in your case you are simply unaware of Muslim leaders' literally countless condemnations but I am not sure what you expect Muslims to do so that the message reaches you. But I am still interested in the heart of your comment. Mr. Goldberg does a better job here than Mr. Hitchens because he basically accepts that terrorist acts could be an effect of war, but that this doesn't really prove as much as the weight Mr. Wright gives to it might suggest. There is considerable feedback and violence in reaction to the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and other military activity in the Muslim world, but

Wait, 9/11 happened for something other than the stationing troops in Saudi Arabia under the authority of international law?

Quoting rcocean: Excellent Diavlog especially regarding Tiger Woods and the discussion on Hypocrisy.

Although Jonah's arguments suggest that it's not the bad acts of Tiger et al. which are the problem, but the fact that they become public and are seen as acceptable. That seems to contradict the apparent "conservative" position that we should make these things public, so as to know that the ones who commit them have bad characters. Instead, it suggests that the real danger is in making these things public, since it normalizes actions that then are encouraged in the population as a whole. My take from that argument (and I think a fair interpretation of what Jonah was saying, in promoting the Victorian way) is that then we shouldn't criticize reporters, etc. for not publicizing Tiger's affairs or the like, but as long as he doesn't make them public himself. Of course, if his partners choose to, as seems to have happened, it's a different story, but there's no sense that the press should have been trying to report on such things before that.

Quoting Lyle: Wait, 9/11 happened for something other than the stationing troops in Saudi Arabia under the authority of international law?

Almost certainly.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Mr. Wright said "we should be grateful" FOR, not TO the Muslim community in the United States.

That doesn't really change anything. Why should we be grateful? because American muslims did not allow the more excitable among them to be persuaded by the 'international criminals' , 'murderers' and 'terrorists' accusations being leveled at Bush, Cheney and Co for the last eight years by Imans, socialists and most of the MSM? Because they fought down those who would commit murder to protest the specious claims of an imperial United States seeking to enslave parts of asia? Should we be thankful to the wahhabists for only 3,000 dying on 9/11?

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Your statement that Muslim leaders in the U.S. have been infrequent in their condemnation of terrorism is just ridiculous, although I know it is a oft heard comment on the right.

I don't doubt that many american muslims have worked to sow peace, harmony and understanding. But please show me evidence of a demonstration condemning jihad-inspired violence that even approaches that over the danish cartoons.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: There is considerable feedback and violence in reaction to the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and other military activity in the Muslim

I got stuck with this diavlog with no other podcast. I think there are many countries in the world where Goldberg can love if he wants to go back in time - just as long as that place doesn't have reliable internet access.

This entire line of "reasoning" was pure Goldberg - crap. Medieval monks debated about "evil" with more rigor than Goldberg can imagine. As much as I think about it, Jonah Lehrer's take on James Surowiecki's "FAE argument", with an assist from Mike in the comments is the most reasonable scientific explanation for the depths of surprise and titillation among public commenters. All this crap about "evil" is beneath any three-year old's intelligence. Bob, stop fellating the "evil", and get a real intellectual to debate next time. This was nearly as disgusting as the McWhorter-Behe debacle.

Quoting stephanie: Although Jonah's arguments suggest that it's not the bad acts of Tiger et al. which are the problem, but the fact that they become public and are seen as acceptable. That seems to contradict the apparent "conservative" position that we should make these things public, so as to know that the ones who commit them have bad characters. Instead, it suggests that the real danger is in making these things public, since it normalizes actions that then are encouraged in the population as a whole.

My take from that argument (and I think a fair interpretation of what Jonah was saying, in promoting the Victorian way) is that then we shouldn't criticize reporters, etc. for not publicizing Tiger's affairs or the like, but as long as he doesn't make them public himself. Of course, if his partners choose to, as seems to have happened, it's a different story, but there's no sense that the press should have been trying to report on such things before that.

My understanding, no doubt imperfect, is that both Bob/ Goldberg's believe - for the good of society - these things should remain private if possible *but* if made public should be

Harkin, You're not paying very close attention to the points that are being made here. (Now, you may think the points are that important or you may have some other objection to them, but refusing to understand what is being said or argued is not really a helpful technique.) I am unaware of any large demonstrations in the U.S. regarding the Danish cartoons. I am not sure what function would be served of having a march against terrorists who do not live in the United States here in the United States, other than apparently it would satisfy you that American Muslims or against terrorism enough for you to approve (although for some strange reason I don't think it actually would). In the rest of your post you fail to see the point Mr. Wright is making and like Mr. Hitchens, cannot understand the difference between cause and effect and moral blame. That is actually why grateful for versus grateful to makes a big difference. To be grateful for something just means that it is better than other possible alternatives (Mr. Wright specifically used the example here of the

Quoting harkin: the American mission of peace and security in Iraq

now that is funny! in poor taste, but funny. keep it up, you might make it as a comedian yet.

I wonder how 'mouthy' a dog-faced, gossip-queen like Bill Maher would be if he had face a duel?

Yeah, or for that matter, Glenn Beck, to whose conspiracy-mongering Jonah contributes regularly?

Quoting rcocean: My understanding, no doubt imperfect, is that both Bob/ Goldberg's believe - for the good of society - these things should remain private if possible *but* if made public should be subject to sanction.

That's generally my recollection/understanding also.

The "awfulness of hypocrisy" argument always puzzled me. First, yielding to temptation or failing to live up to a moral standard is not "hypocrisy". Secondly, its simply irrelevant - in the big scheme of things - whether powerful media or political figure "X" - PERSONALLY believes in moral standards or not - it only matters what their public behavior is.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. But as a corollary, I'll go back to my point about that also meaning that it's not a good idea to try and root out and expose private moral failings. The end result -- especially if the people involved are admired figures (like celebrities and athletes, even today) is not to shame those figures, it's to normalize and in some sense celebrate the behavior in question. If one believes, as both Goldberg and Wright seemed to, that the result of that was bad for many in society, even if not for the celebrities, etc, themselves (money making lots

Goldberg brought up something about bin Laden and the former Yugoslavia. What did bin Laden have anything to do with Yugoslavia? The argument is made by various rightist 'anti-jihad' types that "we were on the same side as bin Laden in Yugoslavia", that bin Laden supported Alija Izetbegovic, etc., and therefore that Muslim-dominated Bosnia is dangerous. This is a transparently bogus argument, first because Bosnia is not Muslim-dominated in any meaningful political sense, and secondly because of course we supported the Muslims, a massive genocide was being carried out in Bosnia and they were the principal victims. It's true that there were some foreign fighters in Bosnia who were motivated by Islamic fundamentalism, but they were not supported by the Izetbegovic government and certainly not by the larger Muslim population. The Balkans has a lot of problems, but Islamic fundamentalism is not one of them. So what was Goldberg's point?

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Your statement that Muslim leaders in the U.S. have been infrequent in their condemnation of terrorism is just ridiculous, ... I am sure in your case you are simply unaware of Muslim leaders' literally countless condemnations but I am not sure what you expect Muslims to do so that the message reaches you.

Perhaps I overstated the point; I hope you are right. What reaches me are the countless statements of support and solidarity from Christians whenever some local kid scribbles a Nazi symbol on one of the local synagogues, just to stir up a reaction. These condemnations of religious intolerance are pronounced and frequent in my part of the country. Messages from local Muslims (and there are many) are less frequent and much more restrained. Perhaps it's the Media's fault.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: There is considerable feedback and violence in reaction to the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and other military activity in the Muslim world, but it is true that hardly any of that takes place in the United States. It is a disheartening but undeniable that the real costs and consequences of these invasions has been almost wholly felt

Really, like what?

Quoting stephanie: Yeah, I'm with you on this one. But as a corollary, I'll go back to my point about that also meaning that it's not a good idea to try and root out and expose private moral failings. The end result -- especially if the people involved are admired figures (like celebrities and athletes, even today) is not to shame those figures, it's to normalize and in some sense celebrate the behavior in question. If one believes, as both Goldberg and Wright seemed to, that the result of that was bad for many in society, even if not for the celebrities, etc, themselves (money making lots of behaviors more get-away-with-able), then the look-away pattern that we used to find more the norm is a better idea.

Agree.

Hasan suffered from moral aloneness. His direct experience of war against Muslims eroded his affiliation to the group he belonged to. His isolation forced him to identify with the ‘other side’. His violent response was the only outlet to relieve his moral despair.

Quoting kezboard: Yeah, or for that matter, Glenn Beck, to whose conspiracy-mongering Jonah contributes regularly?

Lots of differences between Beck and Maher. Beck's married and has kids. Bill "Dogface boy" Maher's so ugly he can't even get married despite his money. Of course, it could be the drugs and booze - or the ugly personality. Hopefully, Maher won't reproduce - just burn in Hell.

Quoting Ocean: Hasan suffered from moral aloneness. His direct experience of war against Muslims eroded his affiliation to the group he belonged to. His isolation forced him to identify with the ‘other side’. His violent response was the only outlet to relieve his moral despair.

Hello? *knock, knock* Hello? *queue atmospheric music* oh no it's the ghost of Edward Said! AND THIS TIME HE'S BACK: POST-POST COLONIAL STYLE.

Quoting Toryentalist: Hello? *knock, knock* Hello? *queue atmospheric music* oh no it's the ghost of Edward Said!

AND THIS TIME HE'S BACK: POST-POST COLONIAL STYLE.

You have a very poetic literary style. Besides that, if you have a point, would you mind sharing with us intelligibly?

Edward Said author of Orientalism. Palestinian problems were the "colonialist fault not a result of Palestinian behavior would be my interpretation.

Quoting rcocean: ... Secondly, its simply irrelevant - in the big scheme of things - whether powerful media or political figure "X" - PERSONALLY believes in moral standards or not - it only matters what their public behavior is.

But it is highly relevant, in Tiger's case, because people want to know about it. This fascination of the public with Tiger's missteps is no different from the public's fascination with Tiger the sports hero. His "power" came from this public interest, originally. In other words, since Tiger's billion-dollar "power" is entirely a function of public fascination, then all aspects of public fascination are quite relevant. I'm just opposed to the whole notion of celebrity. There should be fewer very powerful people and many more slightly powerful people. So I have to disagree with you and Stephanie. And Bob and Jonah. I may not care if celebrities are hypocrites, but their hypocrisy is fair game for the exposing.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending Bill Maher, I just happen to hate him less than I do Beck, but it seems like the measure of a worthwhile talk show host is not how many children he has.

Quoting Lyle: Really, like what?

I have no idea what, ultimately, drove them to their act. Religious hatred is unfathomable, but there is no doubt that they were also motivated by hatred of US foreign policy in the Middle East. We know that from statements they made before the attack. You seem to think that because the American military presence in Saudi Arabia was in accord with international law 9/11 should never have happened. Well...... All that means is that Saudi Arabia and the US had a treaty of cooperation. Citizens don't always agree with the treaties of their governments, do they?

Quoting piscivorous: Edward Said author of Orientalism. Palestinian problems were the "colonialist fault not a result of Palestinian behavior would be my interpretation.

Thank you, piscivorous. If that's what Toryentalist meant, he/she missed the point I was trying to make. My comment wasn't about assigning blame or responsibility for the act of violence. Usually the law addresses the immediate agent of violence, who bears responsibility for choosing that course of action. My comment, however, was about the moral conflict that may be created in someone's mind when there are to opposite affiliations that change in strength over time. It's about the internal psychological experience. I've been interested in this topic of moral aloneness and affiliation to groups in recent times. Thanks again.

Quoting popcorn_karate: now that is funny! in poor taste, but funny. keep it up, you might make it as a comedian yet.

I realize there are those who feel the Iraqi people would be better off under the continued rule of Saddam Hussein and his criminal family but I thought it was now a very small community, population Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Hugo Chavez, Osama Bin Laden etc.

Quoting harkin: I realize there are those who feel the Iraqi people would be better off under the continued rule of Saddam Hussein and his criminal family but I thought it was now a very small community, population Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Hugo Chavez, Osama Bin Laden etc.

There are plenty of people who think the North Korean people are (and have been for a long time) in far worse shape than the Iraqi people have been. Yet freeing them was never a priority, was it? The last six or seven years of hell for the Iraqi people can easily be argued to be far worse than it had been under Saddam - certainly until last year. And we still don't know what's going to happen after we leave. I'd say the community of people certain that what was done in Iraq was (a) done for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and (b) has clearly redounded to their benefit, is limited to former Bush administration officials (who may claim (a) to be true, but one doubts even they believe that) and a few unreflective dead-enders incapable of looking at simple facts contradicting their closely held worldview.

How do you start talking about how you don't believe in material causes of evil and somehow end up on "science is neither good or evil, but a tool." I thought that was a given. Science made the atom bomb, unquestionably the most awesome and evil thing ever created. Belief in material causes of evil does not equal a belief that all criminals should be coddled and "understood." Jonah, the stuff you say is interesting sometimes, but that line of argument is BS. Dudes who shoot up hospitals might do it because they have a screwed up brain chemistry, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get punished. And no serious person on the "left" believes that either. My take on Bob is that when communication in a global world becomes rapid, feedback loops and short circuits get touchier. You could accidently *dare* everyone to kill you, and you have to be mindful of that. Taking the metaphor to the individual level, I'm sure no one would feel sorry for me if I got on the train and talked shit to every angry looking guy I could find until someone clocked me. It's perfectly

Quoting Ocean: My comment, however, was about the moral conflict that may be created in someone's mind when there are to opposite affiliations that change in strength over time. It's about the internal psychological experience. I've been interested in this topic of moral aloneness and affiliation to groups in recent times.

Thanks again.

Or you could just say that it was down to his choice of faith.

Quoting piscivorous: It is defiantly more the like the Huxley's world than Orwell's.

When I used to be a Christian, I came to the conclusion that evil was manifested through terrorism in the Communism sphere, and decadence in the Democracy sphere.

Never really having been a believer, Christen or otherwise, does not preclude me from seeing how you came to those perceptions. I on the other hand have always, at least since the time I was convinced that yes evil does exist, have believed that both evil and decadency inhabit all those environments where humans exist but that the locus of evil is most prevalent in those regimes, organizations and individuals that believe in rule by dictate but decadency is more universal.

Quoting piscivorous: Never really having been a believer, Christen or otherwise, does not preclude me from seeing how you came to those perceptions.

Even as a child, you never believed?

on the other hand have always, at least since the time I was convinced that yes evil does exist, have believed that both evil and decadency inhabit all those environments where humans exist but that the locus of evil is most prevalent in those regimes, organizations and individuals that believe in rule by dictate but decadency is more universal.

I don't know. Once my mother, a non-practicing Catholic, said that despair is the worst sin...not sure where she got that.

Not that I can honestly say I remember. As an army brat we moved around so the church, mandatorily attended by we kids but not the parents, was more of a bother and distraction from my being able to run around the fields, swamp or forests and I resented it.

Quoting piscivorous: Not that I can honestly say I remember. As an army brat we moved around so the church, mandatorily attended by we kids but not the parents, was more of a bother and distraction from my being able to run around the fields, swamp or forests and I resented it.

Wow, mandatory? As a marine brat, I sometimes attended with my mom when I was around 8...Our Lady by the Sea, I think, in Oceanside, CA. What are some places your Dad was stationed?

My dad was primarily used as an ROTC teacher, once he was retired from drill instructing, so we always wound up in small towns with High School ROTC programs. The only time I can remember being on a real bases were Italy, Germany (4-7) and Redstone Arsenal in Alabama (8). We lived in small towns in Ohio, Upper Peninsula Michigan, Texas, Washington and Illinois where my dad retired.

Quoting piscivorous: My dad was primarily used as an ROTC teacher, once he was retired from drill instructing, so we always wound up in small towns with High School ROTC programs. The only time I can remember being on a real bases were Italy, Germany (4-7) and Redstone Arsenal in Alabama (8). We lived in small towns in Ohio, Upper Peninsula Michigan, Texas, Washington and Illinois where my dad retired.

Cool. Gee, you've been around. We stayed put near Pendleton or El Torro, depending, while my dad moved around, but I guess that's the nature of the beast. Thanks.

In a was cool and sucked at the same time. It plays hell with normal emotional development once the hormones start to flow, and it is a problem I see my older siblings still having to deal with at times. But at the same time you develop the ability to look at life from a very rational perspective detached from the emotional pushes and pulls that we all have. For some this detachment can become suppression and is so integrated into their personality that it is a definite liability. For those that learn to deal with it, it is a definite advantage.

Quoting piscivorous: In a was cool and sucked at the same time. It plays hell with normal emotional development once the hormones start to flow, and it is a problem I see my older siblings still having to deal with at times. But at the same time you develop the ability to look at life from a very rational perspective detached from the emotional pushes and pulls that we all have. For some this detachment can become suppression and is so integrated into their personality that it is a definite liability. For those that learn to deal with it, it is a definite advantage.

I guess when you factor in birth order and natural temperament, things get even more confused. I think older sibs buffer younger ones from harsh realities, sometimes, to their (the olders) advantage and disadvantages. This in turn results in the youngers being a little more care-free, etc. But I'm rambling...(I'm the oldest of three girls.) Have you always been such night owl?

I would agree the oldest generally have it the roughest. I'm not as active as I use to be as I now require about 5 hours of sleep.

Quoting piscivorous: I would agree the oldest generally have it the roughest. I'm not as active as I use to be as I now require about 5 hours of sleep.

Sweet dreams.

Quoting look: Cool. Gee, you've been around. We stayed put near Pendleton or El Torro, depending, while my dad moved around, but I guess that's the nature of the beast. Thanks.

It's old home week! I used to teach at Oceanside High School.

Quoting badhatharry: It's old home week! I used to teach at Oceanside High School.

No way! We left California in '67 when my dad got out and we moved to Ohio where he and my mom were originally from. So many memories. What did you teach, harry?

Quoting look: No way! We left California in '67 when my dad got out and we moved to Ohio where he and my mom were originally from. So many memories.

What did you teach, harry?

I taught woodworking. I started in 1987 and left in 1993. Teaching wasn't my profession, woodworking is, but they had a job training program called ROP. I gained a lot of respect for teachers after that experience. Schools have scaled back on all sorts of shop programs of late, which is a shame because, as we know, not everyone is college material.

Quoting badhatharry: I taught woodworking. I started in 1987 and left in 1993. Teaching wasn't my profession, woodworking is, but they had a job training program called ROP. I gained a lot of respect for teachers after that experience.

Schools have scaled back on all sorts of shop programs of late, which is a shame because, as we know, not everyone is college material.

Neat. I remember in the mid-seventies when girls started taking shop, and for a lark, some boys signed up for home-ec. I guess it's gone full circle that my daughter was the only girl in her shop class last year. She's a neat kid. So now you make fine cabinets? I think of you as a Joanie Mitchell type (a compliment).

Quoting badhatharry: I taught woodworking. I started in 1987 and left in 1993. Teaching wasn't my profession, woodworking is, but they had a job training program called ROP. I gained a lot of respect for teachers after that experience.

Schools have scaled back on all sorts of shop programs of late, which is a shame because, as we know, not everyone is college material.

*Warning side note...nothing to do with vlog*
I used to love "shop" in HS but to this day am disappointed in it because, at least in my school, they taught a whole bunch of the impractical. So in woodworking we made stupid stuff like fishing rod holders when they could have taught us why a header over a window was important, how to roof, or frame a wall... in electronics they taught us all about resistors and capacitors when they should have shown us how to wire a light switch or an outlet or add a circuit breaker or in metals we made things like a tool box with a spot welder when they should have just taught us how to solder a copper pipe or arc weld something. All things I have learned

The "So what" argument is my primary issue with Bobs take.
Trying to stop bad actors from engaging in bad acts, and that effort pissing off the bad actors is a so what issue for me. There are countless examples one could imagine to illustrate the point.
Ruling for one parent over another in a custody battle at times leads to the estranged parent kidnapping the child. So, should we not bother ruling for the more responsible parent then? What if the other parent is unstable and that action will tip them over the edge?
I suppose you could make the case that the danger is higher with terrorism. Oh Really? 1 example on US soil that was enacted and carried out in 8 YEARS since 2001. Such a high danger rate, or not. What of real life examples mentioned like a fake story about a Qur'an being tossed in a toilet by US military and sending crazed muslims into a frenzy? What about the publishing of cartoons that did the same? Insecure underdeveloped barbaric individuals and communities might take it the wrong way and get violent, so lets not perturb them with

Quoting Whatfur: *Warning side note...nothing to do with vlog*
I used to love "shop" in HS but to this day am disappointed in it because, at least in my school, they taught a whole bunch of the impractical. So in woodworking we made stupid stuff like fishing rod holders when they could have taught us why a header over a window was important, how to roof, or frame a wall... in electronics they taught us all about resistors and capacitors when they should have shown us how to wire a light switch or an outlet or add a circuit breaker or in metals we made things like a tool box with a spot welder when they should have just taught us how to solder a copper pipe or arc weld something. All things I have learned since but generally from a book and by myself.

Yep nothing to do with the vlog, and we just may be getting into some kind of big trouble here, but as far as shop class goes...it's hard to know where to start with a kid who basically doesn't know how to

Quoting look: Neat. I remember in the mid-seventies when girls started taking shop, and for a lark, some boys signed up for home-ec. I guess it's gone full circle that my daughter was the only girl in her shop class last year. She's a neat kid.

So now you make fine cabinets? I think of you as a Joanie Mitchell type (a compliment).

I was the first woman accepted into the Carpenters Union in Chicago in their cabinetmaking apprenticeship program. I am really surprised that there aren't more women in the trades. They offer good money and interesting work, however, they have remained largely male dominated. I used to want to be just like Joni Mitchell. She made some really good money!!!

Quoting badhatharry: I was the first woman accepted into the Carpenters Union in Chicago in their cabinetmaking apprenticeship program. I am really surprised that there aren't more women in the trades. They offer good money and interesting work, however, they have remained largely male dominated.

I used to want to be just like Joni Mitchell. She made some really good money!!!

Too cool. (I knew 'Joanie' didn't look right.)

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think us conservatives believe that people consiously choose to do bad things. ( and good things ) That society and circumstance don't have as much of an effect on people as liberals believe. Reapplying Milton Friedman's words, everyone is free to choose. Choices to do bad are made to achieve some sort of satisfaction w/o regard to the consequences on others. Murderers kill for the thrill, out of hatred, to make money or achieve some other gain. People engage in serial bankrupcty because they know they can get away with it and have no remorse over stealing from debt issuers.

On a side note, the reason the concept of "EVIL" is less taken up and bandied about by left leaning peoples in the same numbers is that evil is not to be negotiated with, it is to be fought, subdued, destroyed. It is a useful tool and basis for rhetoric when dealing with ramping up for war (likely another reason people who are antiwar on gp despise it). An "EVIL" regime has no worth, there is nothing good to come from such a construct, it is instead a blight which good

Quoting Ray: You're not talking about evil yet.

The question of evil concerns causes. The concept of evil runs contrary to free will. Why did so-and-so kill his children? Because he is evil.

Well; how did he get to be evil? By choosing to be evil. Why'd he choose to be evil? Because he's evil.

People use the concept of evil as a way to end thinking about the reasons behind bad outcomes--and as a way to advance their own interests through scapegoating.

For someone like Jonah, the concept of evil serves merely as foreplay for vengeance pornography. All he wants is the quickest possible path to dehumanization: he wants Hasan to be evil, so that he can punish and torture Hasan without repercussions.

You can see how this parallels his eagerness for some sort of societal collapse to result from health care reform. He likes apocalypse pornography, too.

This pretty much describes why the concept of evil is distasteful to someone on the left. The implications on how we treat such people is a place some just don't want to go, all peoples deserve to be treated as if they have equally

What a diavlog! I could not believe my ears...both Bob and Jonah celebrating the functionality of Victorian hypocrisy while passing judgement on Tiger Woods. Poor Tiger never learned to be an effective hypocrite in golf school. The only scandal in all this is "The Scandal". Shame on the media, shame on Larry King Live, shame on CNN etc for selling their voyeuristic wares as journalism, entertainment, moral judgement etc. The only moral voice in this affair would be that voice that denounces these people for even bringing up the subject. Shame, shame, moral shame,
on them !!!

Quoting Michael: What a diavlog! I could not believe my ears...both Bob and Jonah celebrating the functionality of Victorian hypocrisy while passing judgement on Tiger Woods. Poor Tiger never learned to be an effective hypocrite in golf school. The only scandal in all this is "The Scandal". Shame on the media, shame on Larry King Live, shame on CNN etc for selling their voyeuristic wares as journalism, entertainment, moral judgement etc.

The only moral voice in this affair would be that voice that denounces these people for even bringing up the subject. Shame, shame, moral shame,
on them !!!

The biggest mystery is that with all the filth and trash on even prime time programming, this should generate such interest, to the point that Tiger comes off as the one with class.

Quoting JonIrenicus: The "So what" argument is my primary issue with Bobs take.

I think Jonah's "so what" was a lot more nuanced than the one you express here, and although I normally find him incredibly annoying, I thought he did a decent job in trying to understand and respond to Bob's argument without distorting it (unlike Hitchens) and ultimately had the better of it (although he lost me with his "but what if bin Laden declares victory" bit, although Bob actually started that line of discussion first). Specifically, Jonah acknowledged that it is important in deciding upon one's actions to consider the results, all of them, without some argument that results that come from a bad actor or any other sort of action that we would not thereby justify cannot be ignored in this kind of analysis, even though it might be in some others. Jonah simply then said that Bob's fears that the actions in question (terrorism in the US increasing and a breakdown of our society) weren't particularly well-founded, which I tend to agree with him about. (I might come to the same conclusions as Bob and not Jonah as to the

Quoting JonIrenicus: evil is not to be negotiated with, it is to be fought, subdued, destroyed.

I don't even know what you are referring to when you talk of "evil" in this disconnected way. I explained what I understand by "evil" in my response to Steve's post, and why I think this sloppy claim that liberals and conservatives have particular and distinct understandings of "evil" that map to their policy choices seems so far unproven and inconsistent with at least the Christian view of evil (which one would expect to have some relation to the conservative view). So indulge me and try and define/explain what you mean by evil before launching into such an overheated argument. Without an understanding of how people are using terms, it is difficult to have a discussion.

It is a useful tool and basis for rhetoric when dealing with ramping up for war (likely another reason people who are antiwar on gp despise it).

I think going to war to "fight evil" is simply not how any nation conducts its foreign policy. At best, discussions of "evil" are rhetorical tools. That doesn't mean that I would resist calling particular individuals or regimes

The problem with "consider them all" runs directly to the much maligned Secretary Rumsfeld's quote about known unknowns and unknown unknowns does it not.

Quoting piscivorous: The problem with "consider them all" runs directly to the much maligned Secretary Rumsfeld's quote about known unknowns and unknown unknowns does it not.

No, I really don't think so. Mocked as it was, I thought that was an entirely sensible thing to say, and known and unknown unknowns are always something to keep in mind. I'd even argue it's related closely to the conservative concept (which I totally subscribe to) of the risk of unintended consequences.

Quoting stephanie:
Unlike Jonah, you are distorting the argument, as that's not what Bob was saying.

The rest of your post strikes me as a rant that is not even attempting to be related to what real people (at least real people represented in the diavlog or, so far as I have seen, on the forum) are saying.

Ok he will take it a step further, bad actors get pissed off AND act negatively as a result of our action (justified or not). The point is that gets you nowhere by itself (which Bob knows and makes clear). The "so what" comes into play in cases where bad acts occur as a direct result of our actions, but we should have taken that action anyway.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Ok he will take it a step further, bad actors get pissed off AND act negatively as a result of our action (justified or not).

The point is that gets you nowhere by itself (which Bob knows and makes clear). The "so what" comes into play in cases where bad acts occur as a direct result of our actions, but we should have taken that action anyway.

I think you are continuing to misunderstand Bob's argument in a way Jonah didn't or, at least, disagreeing in a different way than Jonah did. Bob's point seems to me to be that in choosing to go to war, one of the things you need to consider are the negative effects. When doing so, it doesn't matter whether the negative effects result from something for which you are to blame, something for which others are morally responsible, etc. That's just not the question. The question is to consider the bad effects as a whole in determining whether to take the proposed action. Jonah didn't take issue with this at all as a theoretical point. He basically agreed, but simply disputed Bob's claim that Hasan