In terms of culture, Illinois is many different "states," and when you get down to Little Egypt (Cairo), you're a lot closer to Mississippi than you are to Chicago, both in distance and in culture. And Chicago has little in common with any of them, not to mention Arkansas or Kentucky. I'm not sure how that all fits it with whatever was somebody's original point about Obama, since I haven't been keeping up with the geography sub-thread, but it's pretty elementary stuff. I'm sure that the voting patterns of downstate Illinois have much more in common with Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi than they do with Chicago or Champaign-Urbana.

The "natural immunity" is called "incentives," the thing you stubbornly refuse to learn anything about.

Enron?

Good example, yes. Enron is out of business. Whereas even with the worst ####### in government history, the responsible government agencies don't go out of business. (At most, they may reorg, such as creating a Department of Homeland Security, but that's hardly the same thing.)

The problem is that the incentives are to make money for the company, regardless of an adherence to any other directive. All other aims are subordinated to this. If that aim so happens to dovetail with the public good, fantastic. If not, we invoke the "go #### yourself" principle again...

Right, and fortunately the only way for the company to make money is to convince people to voluntarily give some to it; unlike government, private companies don't have guns and the legal authority to confiscate its customers' money.

Part of the function of bureaucracy is to remove subjectivity from the decision-making process as a control mechanism. this serves to remove/eliminate 1) corruption, and 2) "errors" in subjective judgment, which are errors b/c they're deviations from the decision-making formula.

Yes; I think you're arguing on my side now. That's another -- although different -- point against government and in favor of private institutions. Not nearly as much bureaucracy; unlike private institutions, government is incapable of telling the difference between "making an exception" and "corruption." Government employees can't -- and have no incentive to -- say, "Well, we want to keep you as a customer, so we'll waive that requirement." (To go back to the ADA, Phillip Howard, in the Death of Common Sense, tells of some do gooder nuns who wanted to turn an abandoned building into a homeless shelter, but couldn't because they were going to be required to spend gobs of money to install an elevator.)

Where is this? It's difficult to fire someone b/c of the unions, but it isn't impossible. Getting hired by a state agency is nothing like, say, tenure in academia. And within these (especially local) networks of government, word gets around quickly when someone does something so egregious that they get fired for it. Also, there's an accountability to the public that exists in the public sector that doesn't exist in the private sector, where every member of the public feels (rightly) compelled and entitled to look out for corruption in state institutions.

That's not accountability; that's attention. (And it barely exists anyway. Who "looks out for corruption" in the examples people cited above about restaurant inspectors getting bribed?) Accountability is when there are consequences. And that exists far more in the private sector than the public. As mentioned above, Enron is out of business.

Compare the behavior of US soldiers in Iraq and the disciplinary measures they're subject to to private security forces like Blackwater if you want an example of how different standards can be.

Of course, soldiers are not like other government employees and don't have civil service protections in the same way; a soldier can't decide that a particular order from his commander is outside his job description. But setting that aside, Blackwater was working on a government contract, so has nothing to do with the free market.

It's a cult. You guys must've loved the Obama with the cross ad.

ONLY 170 MORE DAYS LEFT TO SAVE YOUR COUNTRY, BRIAN!!!

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?????????

You think that whoever asked BO this question about why he's losing in KY was attempting to illicit the fact Barry is a geographical idiot?

No, I simply think that anyone who considers this to be an example of showing "the fact that Barry is a geographical idiot" is probably unworthy of my time. No offense or anything, but if you're this stupid I don't really have the bandwith to drag you out of your own drool.

Now, that's funny. The Obama love seems to go way beyond the usual my-guy-can-do-no-wrong thinking.

ONLY 170 MORE DAYS LEFT TO SAVE YOUR COUNTRY FROM THE OBAMA CULT, BRIAN!!!

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?????????

Geez Sam, I was really hoping you'd take the time to drag me out of my own drool. Geography skills aren't high on the list for his current (although you'd think a U.S. senator would know the states that border his) and potential job but it does show the difference in media treatment. If you think the media let McCain slide right by on the AlQueda thing then I can't help you.

Andy, have you considered decaf?

Now, that's funny. The Obama love seems to go way beyond the usual my-guy-can-do-no-wrong thinking.

As proof of this, over the weekend somewhere in the neighborhood of 75,000 people showed up to hear the Messiah speak in Portland. 75,000! That sort of crowd is usually reserved for someone like the Pope.

It's amazing, impressive, and a little bit scary if you ask me. I don't think a politician has had a feverish cultlike following of this sort since the infamous mustachioed Austrian whose name shall not be mentioned.

And U.S. geography probably wasn't a major focus in Jakarta or at the Punahou School.

You can tell from this that Joey once again doesn't have a ####### clue, since the Punahou School offers about as good a private school education as you can find anywhere. It's on a par with Groton or Exeter or Andover or any other elite prep school in the US.

Then again, GWB went to Andover, and it doesn't seem to have done much for him.

Thus, while inspection is not a natural monopoly, there is a widespead benefit to making it one. That, of course, could be done by granting the monopoly to a private company. But in doing so, understand that private companies which are granted unnatural monopolies by the government bring none of the advantages of a private company operating in a free market.

Yes. One example is the American Bar Association, a private organization which has a near-monopoly in the U.S., and a full monopoly in many states, on accrediting law schools (*). A monopoly granted by the government. So what does the ABA do? It requires all sorts of things that have more to do with its political views (such as requiring racial preferences in admissions) or with rent-seeking (requirements related to tenure and full time employment for faculty, eliminating schools that focus more on practical education, for instance.)

There's no particular benefit -- indeed, it may be worse -- to allowing the ABA to have a monopoly on accrediting schools. There's always going to be regulatory capture, but in this case, the system eliminates the middleman and lets the ABA regulate directly for its own interests. (In contrast, the way it works in most of higher education, btw, is that the federal government doesn't accredit schools; it accredits private accreditation agencies. If a school isn't accredited by an accredited agency, the main consequence is that it can't accept government student loans.)


(*) To be precise, in many states you can't sit for the bar unless you've gone to an ABA-accredited law school.

Rich Rifkin said: the state of California is in a budget crisis, due to the popping of the real estate bubble.

Let's not duck the issue of Proposition 13. California has budget problems because we capped property taxes in 1978. I suggest a good start to budget reform would be to *raise property taxes* and decrease prison spending.

EDIT: Whoops I thought I was participating in the *recent* thread.

Government employees can't -- and have no incentive to -- say, "Well, we want to keep you as a customer, so we'll waive that requirement."

Requirements are waived all of the time. The ADA inspector has the ability to make exceptions. The problem is where you may see a sensible exception to a rule, I may see corruption. Calling your assemblyman to complain about the application of a rule you disagree with isn't much different than trying to reach the upper levels of a company when you feel they've wronged you. I'd actually argue it's easier to get in touch with a government rep with some sway than it is to get anyone from Verizon who has latitude in making decisions. I didn't say there was no freedom of judgment, just that in bureaucracies, there's going to be structured decision-making constrained by a higher authority. See below.

Not nearly as much bureaucracy

We must have worked in different private companies. How many vice presidents does JP Morgan have? WHERE IS THE REAL RONALD MCDONALD?????

Good example, yes. Enron is out of business.

At what cost?

Enron is out of business.

Yes, they got caught. After massive corruption defrauded their employees of their "freely-given" labor...If this is your system working as it should, find another example...

fortunately the only way for the company to make money is to convince people to voluntarily give some to it

Please please please Free Market Jesus stop using the word "voluntary" until you speak to the issues I've mentioned time and time again about the way you define that word.

Blackwater was working on a government contract, so has nothing to do with the free market.

?????? Blackwater works for governments all of the time, not just the US government. What does the government contract have to do with my point?

Joey, will you please stop bashing Emperor Franz Joseph I.

Finally - about the Tyranny of the Majority. I utterly agree that this is a real issues (and I am the crypto-marxist) and frankly, it sucks. But on the other side, I think formerly_dp's point about more property/liquidity = more rights (and that this is where Libertarians leads) is correct.

No more than "more eloquence" = "more rights" would be a correct argument against free speech. (Now we are back to Harrison Bergeron. The fact that one is better able to exercise one's rights than someone else is not the same thing as having "more" rights. Leftists always confuse moral equality with factual equality.)

Great Op-Ed in the LA Times about all the times right-wingers have yelled appeasement in the past and been wrong: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story

Also, you know who else other than Obama likes appeasing terrorists? The same people Bush gave that speech to: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984388.html

2000 posts? I was trying to pry David out of his analytic eggshell back in the mid-90s. He's made progress approximating zero as far as I can tell. I blame Princeton.

The fault lies not in the stars, but in yourselves, gentlemen. If you actually had good arguments, you might convince someone of something.

If you want to argue that social safety nets, govmt' health inspections and anti-discrimination laws lead to totalitarianism, you just go right ahead.

I do. And here's the argument in picture form for slow learners like Sam.

OBAMA'S GOING TO MAKE REV. WRIGHT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE!!!!!

HE'S GOING TO FORCE THROUGH GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!

HE'S GOING TO CUT OFF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH ALL WHITE COUNTRIES!!!!

HE'S GOING TO MAKE US ALL SAY "PEOPLE OF COLOR"!!!!!

HE'S GOING TO MAKE BILL AYERS SECRETARY OF HHS!!!!!

HE WANTS EVERYONE TO BE RACIALLY CONFUSED!!!!!

HE'LL CONVERT ALL THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES INTO BLACK MUSLIM MOSQUES!!!!!

HE'LL SELL OUT ISRAEL TO HAMAS AND THEN SHIP ALL THE JEWS OFF TO THE DAMASCUS GULAG!!!!!

HE'LL SELL YOUR CHILDREN ON THE BLACK MARKET TO LESBIAN GANGS, WHO WILL LOCK THEM IN THEIR BASEMENTS AND THEN MAKE THEM ALL SELL DRUGS IN FRONT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS!!!!!

AND THAT'S ONLY DURING HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE!!!!!

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????????????????????

Andy, have you considered decaf?

Nah, I'm sticking to my mango juice while you and Joey figure out how to save the world from the Obama Cult.

And it ain't my problem. Hell, who do you think has been programming him all these years? Only 170 days more and my little plan is completed, you suckers.....

...since the Punahou School offers about as good a private school education as you can find anywhere. It's on a par with Groton or Exeter or Andover or any other elite prep school in the US.

At least 3 (and maybe more) female Punahou graduates went to my college and if they're representative, I can't imagine a more beautiful graduating female HS class anywhere in America. Perhaps on earth. Wow.

re: posts 5032 and 5033, % of pop homosexual studies -

Report from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).

Also, from a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case:

In footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief, pro-homosexual groups agreed with the following: “The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994).

Not much I can say in reply to that Andy. Tired of all that civic discourse BS?

One thing is for certain: as fanatically devoted and loyal as you are Andy, you deserve to get a position is his potential administration as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Propaganda and Bookselling, or something along those lines. I may send him a friendly e-mail recommending you, with a link to this thread.

Great Op-Ed in the LA Times about all the times right-wingers have yelled appeasement

As Chris Matthews noted recently, the problem in 1938 was not talking to the guy, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia. (And yes, I know it wasn't literally half of Czechoslovakia, even crosswise.)

We must have worked in different private companies. How many vice presidents does JP Morgan have? WHERE IS THE REAL RONALD MCDONALD?????

Or maybe we worked for different governments. I'm sure JP Morgan, like many in the financial community, inflates job titles, but that has nothing to do with bureaucracy per se; can one order office supplies there without filling out a form and sending it to three different offices?

Please please please Free Market Jesus stop using the word "voluntary" until you speak to the issues I've mentioned time and time again about the way you define that word.

Your "issues" were word games; I "define" the word the way normal people do.

As Chris Matthews noted recently, the problem in 1938 was not talking to the guy, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia. (And yes, I know it wasn't literally half of Czechoslovakia, even crosswise.)

Well, yes,I asked this question either earlier in this thread or in another thread, and never really got an answer. Talking is not an end; it's a means to an end. You don't want to threaten the country. You don't want to give it half of Czechoslovakia. Obama's just going to "talk" until the mellifluous sound of our savior's voice convinces these countries of the error of their ways?

True, the problem in 1938 was not talking to the guy. Instead, the problem in 1938 was thinking that talking to the guy was a solution to the problem.

The Obama love seems to go way beyond the usual my-guy-can-do-no-wrong thinking.

Unlike the McCain love:

Columbus — Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.

"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."

Everhart was praising McCain for never denouncing the United States while he was being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

"I'm not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I'm looking at the pain that was there," she said.

Georgia state GOP chair: McCain 'kind of like Jesus'

Remember, she's not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ.

Really.

Not.

1/3 of beneficiaries over 65 get 90% or more of their income from Social Security, according to SSA.

Which means 2/3 don't, right? I don't see how that contradicts what I was saying.

People whose primary source of income is SS usually don't even have to file a return, because the rest of their income doesn't rise to the filing level. I do see a fair number of those people (and this year I did file returns for them because they needed to file a return to get the stimulus payment); I just get many more who do have other sources of income.

-- MWE

Talking is not an end; it's a means to an end.

Which is exactly what Obama has said.

True, the problem in 1938 was not talking to the guy. Instead, the problem in 1938 was thinking that talking to the guy was a solution to the problem.

If you can find a quote where Obama has said talking — by itself, in the absence of any other diplomatic tools — was a solution to a foreign policy problem, produce it. Otherwise we might think you're just making up another strawman.

Thanks, TomH, for the figures and source.

Talking is not an end; it's a means to an end.

hmm. so reaching post 5802 isn't an end in itself?

Wow, the dictionary. Burn. You don't F with the dictionary. Always the last word on concepts and definitions with long and conflict-ridden histories. Can you look up the word "dense" for me too?

can one order office supplies there without filling out a form and sending it to three different offices?

Yes. When I worked for SUNY, we never had a problem ordering office supplies- we never had a problem at any of the state offices I've worked in. This is why I just can't take you seriously- you'll start to make an argument in good faith and then switch to a strategic caricature mid-sentence, just when I was starting to follow you. You have no other way of supporting your argument. It's an artform, to be sure, but a really annoying one. Like someone who's still making macaroni necklaces and pretending people should take them seriously as an jewelery-maker...

Yes. When I worked for SUNY, we never had a problem ordering office supplies- we never had a problem at any of the state offices I've worked in.

You're confusing hyperbole with caricature -- but I worked for the DoD, and that basically describes the bureaucracy. (Unlike Kevin, I wasn't a commissioned officer; just a civilian.)

The fault lies not in the stars, but in yourselves, gentlemen. If you actually had good arguments, you might convince someone of something.

David, let's not delude ourselves, shall we? Ain't nothing on the planet going to shake your irrational faith in your religious principles at this point.

Wow, the dictionary. Burn. You don't F with the dictionary. Always the last word on concepts and definitions with long and conflict-ridden histories.

Once again, we can blame Princeton's shoddy philosophy department for this shortcoming.

Not much I can say in reply to that Andy. Tired of all that civic discourse BS?

As in "Obama cult," Brian? That BS belongs on Little Green Footballs. It's about as clever (and original) as "Democrat Party" or "Baby Killer Bush."

Talking is not an end; it's a means to an end.

Well, sure. As one of the stories that nycfan links in #5116 notes, talking with Qaddafi turned out, surprisingly, to be very productive. Diplomacy has worked on many, many historical occasions. Mere noise, I will grant you, doesn't help at all; but mere noise is the Bush 43 principle: call somebody the axis of evil, and cover your ears as you keep repeating it at the top of your lungs.

Talking is not an end; it's a means to an end.


Which is exactly what Obama has said.



True, the problem in 1938 was not talking to the guy. Instead, the problem in 1938 was thinking that talking to the guy was a solution to the problem.


If you can find a quote where Obama has said talking — by itself, in the absence of any other diplomatic tools — was a solution to a foreign policy problem, produce it. Otherwise we might think you're just making up another strawman.

DMN asked over a thousand posts ago what Obama expects to achieve from talks with Iran and no Obama supporters have given any answer. Iran is a hostile power and has been long before Bush started bungling things in the region. They're not going to make any concessions because they think we're swell guys, so that leaves carrots and sticks. Is Obama going to threaten Iran? Should he? Is he going to offer them carrots to change their behavior? If so, what will he offer them and what does he hope to get in return? If Obama really believes there should be an end to such talks, other than simply talking, what is it?

call somebody the axis of evil, and cover your ears as you keep repeating it at the top of your lungs.

And then, in the case of North Korea, turn around and adopt the approach of your predecessor anyway, after you had endlessly trashed it.

Obama's just going to "talk" until the mellifluous sound of our savior's voice convinces these countries of the error of their ways?

Where does he say that? You just pulled that straight out of your ass (or Bush's speech). The proposal is to negotiate with them like we negotiated with China, the Soviet Union, Libya, etc. There are issues on which we and Iran can find common ground (Al-Qaeda, stable Afghanistan and Iraq) and maybe there are some issues we can negotiate on to get them to stop their nuclear program. Maybe there aren't, but maybe there are, and I don't see what harm comes from finding out.

You're confusing hyperbole with caricature

No.

Come on FMJ- you're going to claim that unnecessary paperwork is an invention and the sole domain of government agencies? A lot of paperwork is of the cover-your-ass variety, and there's as much need to cover your ass in a large private bureaucracy as there is in large public ones. To get reimbursed for my last conference, working at a large private university, I had to fill out 6 different forms, including one for each receipt that was photocopied. The higher you go up the food chain, more autonomy you have for things like ordering office supplies. But a lot of that is to mitigate against corruption, fraud and waste, which I'm sure you think private companies want to minimize as well- someone has determined how much copy paper we need, and when we need more, we've got to fill out some forms. What are you looking for here, FMJ? Are you going to pretend governments are the only organizations where people think they have to fill out too much paperwork? Did you see Office Space? Was everyone who worked for a private company like "I don't get it, we don't have anything like a TPS report here at Enron" and everyone who works for the government like "TPS reports, that is so me!"?

Man, it's just stubborn and willful ignorance at this point...even at the lowest levels of higher education, you get an automatic F for giving a dictionary definition as your final answer....
EDIT: Sam, I assumed Princeton wasn't an exception, but as you point out, I've apparently been misled...

DMN asked over a thousand posts ago what Obama expects to achieve from talks with Iran

How about: Cooperation going after Al-Qaeda, cooperation on Iraq, where both sides have an interest in stability and already support the same ruling parties, and maybe negotiation on the nuclear program and aid to Hezbollah/Hamas.

Iran cooperated with us right after 9/11 and in the early going in Afghanistan, but then we decided to make them an axis of evil member and we stopped cooperating. Iran tried to push for diplomatic negotiations again in 2003, but we rebuffed them. Check out this article for details: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539

DMN asked over a thousand posts ago what Obama expects to achieve from talks with Iran and no Obama supporters have given any answer. Iran is a hostile power and has been long before Bush started bungling things in the region. They're not going to make any concessions because they think we're swell guys

Obama expects to accomplish with Iran what Reagan accomplished in 1983 when he talked with the Soviets. The same thing Nixon accomplished when he talked with China. No one -- absolutley no one -- expects Obama to walk in and charm the Iranians into sending us oil for free. No one, that is, except disingenious debaters who would prefer to make catty one-offs about "mellifluous" voices or trite accusations of cultism than honestly engage in reasoned dialogue. Now granted, there existed a faction of the right wing that thought Reagan and Nixon were wrong and should have maintained a belicose intransigence in their cases, but back then the Republicans rightly recognized those guys for the crazy people that they are. In today's Republican party those guys are steering the boat. This is why the "brand" is near irreparably damaged.

But hey, what did Reagan and Nixon know about conservatism and forigen policy? They were just liberal appeasers without the backbone to fight the on-going Holy War against the forces of evil.

If you can find a quote where Obama has said talking — by itself, in the absence of any other diplomatic tools — was a solution to a foreign policy problem, produce it. Otherwise we might think you're just making up another strawman.

I'll bite: what's a "diplomatic tool"? I reiterate what I said earlier: I understand carrot. I understand stick. I don't understand what Obama supporters -- and perhaps Obama himself -- think "diplomacy" is. Czechoslovakia was a carrot -- but Obama supporters are upset at Bush for mentioning it. The Air Force is a stick -- but some Obama supporters here were very upset at Hillary for mentioning it.

How about: Cooperation going after Al-Qaeda, cooperation on Iraq, where both sides have an interest in stability and already support the same ruling parties, and maybe negotiation on the nuclear program and aid to Hezbollah/Hamas.

Pretty much the same things Bush's own defense secretary is interested in talking to them about.

"talking with Qaddafi turned out, surprisingly, to be very productive."

This is the first time I've ever heard someone spin the Libya reversal in these terms. The Bushites have been saying for a few years that Moammar's decision to give up his pursuit of WMDs (and to otherwise be less of an international pariah) is due to what he saw happening in Iraq. That is, Moammar feared Libya would be next to be invaded, so he changed course to save himself.

You are saying that he changed course just because we made nice with him with talk-talk.

While I don't find the Bushie argument fully convincing, your contention (if I've characterized it right) is even less convincing.... Only someone who didn't understand what a bizarre psychopath Qaddafi is would presume that his changes in course are ever due to rational decision-making. This is a very strange man. It's entirely possible that he changed his policy because he had a dream or read an astrological chart or some such nonsense. To assume action A happened and that permitted or forced action B does not apply with lunatics.

I'll bite: what's a "diplomatic tool"? I reiterate what I said earlier: I understand carrot. I understand stick.

That your understanding of foreign policy is so simplistic as this is the tell. Adults have a more complex understanding of the world. For example, by sitting down and talking with the Iranians we could more correctly guage what carrots they actually want. We wouldn't have to depend solely on spotty intelligence and the self-aggrandizing ravings of dissidents. Again, do you see no purpose in Nixon going to China or Reagan sitting down with Gorbachev?

This is the first time I've ever heard someone spin the Libya reversal in these terms. The Bushites have been saying for a few years that Moammar's decision to give up his pursuit of WMDs (and to otherwise be less of an international pariah) is due to what he saw happening in Iraq. That is, Moammar feared Libya would be next to be invaded, so he changed course to save himself.

That's an interesting theory considering that Libya made overtures for talks long before we invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. This is post facto reasoning at its finest.

"Obama expects to accomplish with Iran what Reagan accomplished in 1983 when he talked with the Soviets."

Are you sure Reagan spoke with the Soviets in 1983? I thought his first summit was in his second term.

I aint gonna read "road to serfdom" - although I thank DMN for the lovely filmstrip.

This is from the Amazon.com product description:

the collectivist idea of empowering government with increasing economic control would inevitably lead not to a utopia but to the horrors of nazi Germany and fascist Italy.

Two words here make the work irrelvant. "increasing" and "inevitably"

so-called "progressive" (socialist) governments

Yes, "so-called" as in they weren't really "progressive".

I haven't seen any fans of progressive thought on this site who aren't fans of progressive democracy, so whipping out totalitarian atrocities is not really relevant.

How about: Cooperation going after Al-Qaeda, cooperation on Iraq, where both sides have an interest in stability and already support the same ruling parties, and maybe negotiation on the nuclear program and aid to Hezbollah/Hamas.

Iran already HAS influence in Iraq. Probably more than we do. We can't offer them what they already have. They want nuclear weapons. What are we willing to offer to get them to give them up? From Iran's perspective, Hamas/Hezbollah are smashing successes. You use the word negotiation, what does that mean? You're saying Obama is going to negotiate to get them to give up nuclear weapons. I say, Ok, but what will he propose? And you respond by saying he'll negotiate. And we're back to talking for talking's sake. At this point we have few mutual interests, and those we do have, Iran doesn't really need our help with.

Carrots for some! Large, American sticks for others.

Are you sure Reagan spoke with the Soviets in 1983? I thought his first summit was in his second term.

I could be misremembering the date but I thought it was '83. If I'm off by a few years I accept that error and maintain that the point stands regardless of the detail.

The Bushites have been saying for a few years that Moammar's decision to give up his pursuit of WMDs (and to otherwise be less of an international pariah) is due to what he saw happening in Iraq. That is, Moammar feared Libya would be next to be invaded, so he changed course to save himself

This could be true (though it doesn't mean we were right to start the Iraq war), and if it is and if Iran had, and possibly still has, similar fears about a US attack, why haven't we tried to use it to our advantage? The article i linked to before shows how the Bush administration rebuffed Iranian offers of negotiation. We have the stick (the threat of invasion), we have some carrots (removal of sanctions, turning over MEK members, restoring diplomatic relations), why don't we see what we can get with them?

Iran is a hostile power and has been long before Bush started bungling things in the region.

They are a hostile power since they overthrew the corrupt government that we supported in 1979. We also supported their enemy Saddam Hussein (until 1991), while they were at war with Iraq!

Frankly - how would you even know would effect diplomacy might have with a country we don't even have rudimentary diplomatic relations with.

Have any of all y'all libertarians played Bioshock yet?

Great game. I don't know that it's ultimately anti-libertarian in philosophy, though, for reasons I can't explain without killing the plot.

Frankly - how would you even know would effect diplomacy might have with a country we don't even have rudimentary diplomatic relations with.

It's self-fullfilling prophecy. We know Iran is evil because we don't have diplomatic relations with them. We don't have diplomatic relations because their evil. The inescapable reasoning of neoconservatism in a nutshell.

You are saying that he changed course just because we made nice with him with talk-talk

I don't quite understand the equation diplomacy = make nice with talk-talk. Presumably there are other ways of carrying on international relations than military force, the silent treatment, or blandishments over hors d'oeuvres. I suspect that Qaddafi has always been impressed by the US military, and I suspect that any nation that talks with the US will be impressed by it.

Frankly - how would you even know would effect diplomacy might have with a country we don't even have rudimentary diplomatic relations with.

I don't "know" what would happen if we attempted negotiations with them. But I'd think the people advocating those negotiations might be able to say 1. What they hope to gain, and 2. What they're willing to give up. Especially since nobody is even considering the downsides of such negotiations.

I don't know that it's ultimately anti-libertarian in philosophy, though, for reasons I can't explain without killing the plot.

I wouldn't say that it's anti-l, just that it is an engagement with the philosophy, and that alone makes it unique among video games. Masterful.

I don't quite understand the equation diplomacy = make nice with talk-talk. Presumably there are other ways of carrying on international relations than military force, the silent treatment, or blandishments over hors d'oeuvres.

This is all part and parcel to the bellicosity of the neoconservative mindset. Any talk is just namby-pamby water carrying. There is no value in diplomacy. There exist only nations which tow our national line and potential targets. To admit a middle ground would be to deny the "national greatness" of our unipolarity.

Incidentally, WRT Iran and various sticks and carrots, did you know that you can't send a book (by Obama, Ayn Rand, anybody) to Iran using Amazon or BandN? There is an all-but-absolute embargo. Except for carpets. Carpets, the axis of evil can export to us, and they have been doing so throughout the Bush 43 years, under an easing of sanctions initiated by I hate to bring her up in 2000.

I'll bite: what's a "diplomatic tool"? I reiterate what I said earlier: I understand carrot. I understand stick. I don't understand what Obama supporters -- and perhaps Obama himself -- think "diplomacy" is. Czechoslovakia was a carrot -- but Obama supporters are upset at Bush for mentioning it. The Air Force is a stick -- but some Obama supporters here were very upset at Hillary for mentioning it.

If you're going to think like Bush, and cast diplomacy as only a choice between the most infantile extremes: it's either give away the Sudetenland, or unleash the B-52s - I'm not sure there's much use attempting to explain this to you. But let's turn to Bob Gates, Bush's own defense secretary for a try:

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran with Incentives, Pressure

What do they want that we can offer as a carrot without compromising our interests? Well biggest of all, they want a stable Iraq, and we want a stable Iraq. And both of us are invested in the success of the Maliki government. There are things they want from that relationship that we can probably facilitate without giving up our goals in Iraq, or the region. Gates certainly thinks so. And there is no visible difference between what Gates has proposed and what Obama has proposed.

But that's just a starting point. We can also continue to play the Sunni Saudis off against them, and threaten them (for example) with encouraging deeper Saudi involvement in the Sunni cause in Iraq against the Iranian's Shi'ite allies (including Maliki). That would make for some strange and difficult multi-level chess, given that we've alligned ourselves with Maliki's Shi'ite faction, but hey, I'm not a diplomat. The whole issue of sanctions is an open one: we can threaten to make them harsher or softer, depending on what we get in return. There may also be opportunities to exploit the internal divisions within Iran, if handled the right way. And who knows what else. Which doesn't mean the big stick of air strikes or even invasion aren't always at hand, either (even if the latter is entirely undoable at this point, you could always threaten to put Cheney in charge of the strike force just to let them know the total nutjobs aren't very far away).

Simply washing your hands of talk entirely, however, or (as Gates says) saying you'll only talk to Iran if they do everything you want, has been proven to be ineffective, not only with Iran but with North Korea.

1. What they hope to gain.

1. Cease the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology.
2. Cooperation toward mutual goals in Iraq.

2. What they're willing to give up.

1. Nuclear energy (which is what they really want.)
2. Normalized relations.
3. Stand down of "let's invade Iran next" rhetoric.

Except for carpets.

When I first read this, I thought it said "carrots"...now I want a carrot...

Isn't there a tastier food we could use to provide an incentive for good behavior? Like bacon? Bacon will get you some diplomacy...

Isn't there a tastier food we could use to provide an incentive for good behavior? Like bacon? Bacon will get you some diplomacy...

Not a useful metaphor for Muslims or Jews.

SH: "That's an interesting theory considering that Libya made overtures for talks long before we invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. This is post facto reasoning at its finest."

Your calling it de facto reasoning doesn't make it so. It could be bogus, but it remains the fact that the long-held talks had resulted in no changes in Libya's policy prior to the Iraq War. Even if the war did not scare Moammar, it remains the case that he gave up his WMD program after he saw Saddam fall from power.

Here are some snippets from an old article which explains the Bushie theory.

"The announcement by Lybia to allow international weapons inspectors and to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs clearly reflects the chilling impact of the arrest of Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Iraq and Libya's longstanding interest in having U.S. and U.N. sanctions removed," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk.

And:

(Bush) said his action against the Iraqi leader, as well as U.S. efforts to rein in weapons pursuits by North Korea and Iran, "have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction" and played a role in Gadhafi's decision.

Where does he say that? You just pulled that straight out of your ass (or Bush's speech). The proposal is to negotiate with them like we negotiated with China, the Soviet Union, Libya, etc. There are issues on which we and Iran can find common ground (Al-Qaeda, stable Afghanistan and Iraq) and maybe there are some issues we can negotiate on to get them to stop their nuclear program. Maybe there aren't, but maybe there are, and I don't see what harm comes from finding out.

And this essentially covers it, insofar as rebutting nitwitted Republican yapping points. If someone wants to assert no good can come from negotiations with hostile countries, they're oblivious to history, and there's no need to counter with more than this.

What I would be interested in seeing is the actual argument that Obama's inexperience and stances are somehow dangerous. If there's a case to be made, make it. Quote him, and extrapolate from there, and see where it takes us.

Not a useful metaphor for Muslims or Jews.

Point.

Solution= turkey bacon.

I don't "know" what would happen if we attempted negotiations with them. But I'd think the people advocating those negotiations might be able to say 1. What they hope to gain, and 2. What they're willing to give up. Especially since nobody is even considering the downsides of such negotiations.

Excellent point, as military intervention in lieu of negotiation comes with no "downsides" whatsoever.

Crap--dp beat me to the "turkey bacon" bit.

Would they accept Bacos?

To follow up what retro said, what are the downsides of such negotiations?

By the way, does it strike anyone else as extremely odd that libertarians claim property rights, an extension of the body, with all the state apparatus required to assert and protect those rights, as sacrosanct, but not health rights, which pertain to one's actual body?

Stay thirsty my friends.

And remember, Dos Equis is Spanish for TWO Equis.

Your calling it de facto reasoning doesn't make it so. It could be bogus, but it remains the fact that the long-held talks had resulted in no changes in Libya's policy prior to the Iraq War.

And the Bushies seeing the world through their narrow lens doesn't make it not so. Libya was open to negotiations long before the Bush Doctrine was released, much less Saddam Hussein was arrested. Coming in after the fact and applying the "it's all because of our wonderful actions" is pretty much the definition of post hoc reasoning.

Excellent point, as military intervention in lieu of negotiation comes with no "downsides" whatsoever.

That'd be quite a zinger if there was somebody here actually advocating that.

By the way, does it strike anyone else as extremely odd that libertarians claim property rights, an extension of the body, with all the state apparatus required to assert and protect those rights, as sacrosanct, but not health rights, which pertain to one's actual body?

I don't have any idea what "health rights" are. If by "health rights" you mean the right to compel other people to care for you against their will, no, there's nothing odd about it.

Would they accept Bacos?

Reminds me of the scene in Annie Hall, where Annie introduces her Jewish boyfriend to the family and they serve him ham ("dynamite ham"). And when WASP Grammy looks at him, she sees a guy in Hasidim getup.

Well-said in 5146, Sam. Probably why there's been little to no response.

That'd be quite a zinger if there was somebody here actually advocating that.

Well, numerous people are ruling out negotiation, so what the hell's left, other than military intervention? Military intervention + tough talk? Economic isolation (with countries we don't trade with anyway)?

In any case, the comment I responded to certainly implied that negotiation with Iran carries greater risk than military action against Iran, with absolutely no support whatsoever.

For those who oppose regulation, how about them Chinese schools? Something tells me there was no code they had to adhere to.

For example, by sitting down and talking with the Iranians we could more correctly guage what carrots they actually want.

The way you phrase this, however, implies that the eventual use of carrots (and maybe sticks, I don't want to put words into your mouth) is still going to be required. Doesn't that make the question of what carrots and what sticks can be put on the table a valid one? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

the right to compel other people to care for you against their will

The jedi mind trick doesn't work- you keep arguing for this materialist understanding of labor as having the right to everything you touch, but no one is compelling anyone to care for anyone else against their will if, as you contend, the people laboring in such a system have freely chosen their careers and freely surrendered the labor that their career in health care involves. From a material standpoint, the only ones caring for people are health care workers. Just because you gave some money to help it happen doesn't mean you did it. Is there a place where this tactic actually works? I paid for the computer I'm typing on- does that mean I built it? If so, sweet, I'll add building laptops to what is suddenly a huge list of new skills I have...including, apparently, nursing and cardiology...

Paying money for something doesn't equal doing it yourself. Every argument you make is undermined by how poorly you understand the basic conceptions that underlie your own position. I almost think you're joking but you'd have to be a Skrull to keep such a charade up for so long...

The way you phrase this, however, implies that the eventual use of carrots (and maybe sticks, I don't want to put words into your mouth) is still going to be required.

Diplomacy doesn't remove the carrot/stick metaphor. Diplomacy IS the carrot/stick metaphor. Our current policy is "#### you and your carrots, do what the hell you're told or we'll bomb you." That's not diplomacy. That's not adults leading their national interests through the international gauntlet. That's a grade-school level mentality that doesn't even work on the playground. When we or Obama say we're open to diplomacy with Iran we mean "we think we should reintroduce the concept of the carrot to the equation." If your only carrot is the magnanimous willingness to not bomb them -- yet -- you're not engaging the world. You're simply bumbling about creating more enemies than you'll ever be able pacify.

The way you phrase this, however, implies that the eventual use of carrots (and maybe sticks, I don't want to put words into your mouth) is still going to be required.

Not wanting to speak for Sam, but, yes--that's what negotiation is. Possibility of receiving carrots in exchange for partial or complete compliance; possibility of more dire consequences (sticks) for failure to comply, all taken into consideration by the parties and weighed in accordance with their own interests.

There seems to be an awful lot of assumption here that "negotiation" means "talking in a vacuum, without the specter of possible US military intervention as a backdrop," which is silly. "Negotiation" should not be assumed to usurp the role of the military (or to preclude the use of military force if negotiation is fruitless). This use of "negotiation" exists only in the minds of Obama's political opponents.

Yes, "so-called" as in they weren't really "progressive".

I haven't seen any fans of progressive thought on this site who aren't fans of progressive democracy, so whipping out totalitarian atrocities is not really relevant.

We all know that "progressive" is the current favored term by the left to describe the ideology that encompasses socialism, collectivism, and top-down state control.

It's true that you don't find too many leftists anymore these days who still openly admit to being fans of Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot and such, but your predecessors in earlier generations were big fans back in the day.

And to this day, you can still find many on the left who openly show their admiration for the more minor socialist/communist revolutionary killers: guys like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. I see idiots with the posters and the t-shirts all the time.

Wow... 85 posts in 2 1/2 hours... that projects to 816 posts in a day, although I realize that this is a peak time for posting. And this thread is over a month old - If each of these 'pages' translates to 30 Microsoft Word pages, that would be close to 1,560 overall - has anybody actually read all of its content?

When we or Obama say we're open to diplomacy with Iran we mean "we think we should reintroduce the concept of the carrot to the equation." If your only carrot is the magnanimous willingness to not bomb them -- yet -- you're not engaging the world.

So -- trying to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here -- your answer to Nieporent's question about what diplomatic tools are considered to be on the table is essentially that introducing the idea that they might be able to get what they want by cooperating with us is a requirement for engaging in diplomacy at all?

Diplomacy IS the carrot/stick metaphor. Our current policy is "#### you and your carrots, do what the hell you're told or we'll bomb you." That's not diplomacy.

I agree that it's not diplomacy, and I also agree that it's not a very effective policy unless you really mean it and have the power to back up the threat.

I don't think it's a particularly accurate description of US foreign policy in 2008. If it was, we'd be bombing China, Iran, and North Korea right now.

Wow... 85 posts in 2 1/2 hours... that projects to 816 posts in a day, although I realize that this is a peak time for posting. And this thread is over a month old - If each of these 'pages' translates to 30 Microsoft Word pages, that would be close to 1,560 overall - has anybody actually read all of its content?

With the exception of some of what has been written by the two posters I usually have on "ignore", you betcha. As Andy mentioned a few hundred posts back, this sort of dialogue on the net is extremely rare. Granted, it can steal a couple of hours out of my day, but given that a lot of what is written is top-notch and provocative, it has definitely been worth it.

Possibility of receiving carrots in exchange for partial or complete compliance; possibility of more dire consequences (sticks) for failure to comply, all taken into consideration by the parties and weighed in accordance with their own interests.

Okay, I'm with you so far.

There seems to be an awful lot of assumption here that "negotiation" means "talking in a vacuum, without the specter of possible US military intervention as a backdrop," which is silly.

Still agreed.

"Negotiation" should not be assumed to usurp the role of the military (or to preclude the use of military force if negotiation is fruitless).

Still with you ...

This use of "negotiation" exists only in the minds of Obama's political opponents.

What Nieporent originally posted that drew Sam's response was this:

The Air Force is a stick -- but some Obama supporters here were very upset at Hillary for mentioning it.

If that's a misconception on David's part, okay. If it's accurate but doesn't reflect Obama's actual position, okay. If it's accurate and reflects Obama's actual position but is still a good idea for some other reason, okay -- all of those are valid objections, but Sam's post didn't seem responsive to the underlying question of what options are on the table. I think that question's a valid one, so I wanted to see if I could understand why he appeared to be rejecting the premise.

We all know that "progressive" is the current favored term by the left to describe the ideology that encompasses socialism, collectivism, and top-down state control.

It's true that you don't find too many leftists anymore these days who still openly admit to being fans of Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot and such, but your predecessors in earlier generations were big fans back in the day.

And to this day, you can still find many on the left who openly show their admiration for the more minor socialist/communist revolutionary killers: guys like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. I see idiots with the posters and the t-shirts all the time.

I'll make you a deal, Joey. I won't pretend that you want to restore Jim Crow just because most self-described conservatives favored it before history finally made them cry "Uncle," if you'll get over the fact that many lefties were equally morally culpable at the time. For every fellow traveler on the left you can cite (and trust me, I can rattle off a lot more of them than you can), I can name you a fellow traveler of the Dixiecrats, starting right up there with Mr. Conservative himself, William F. Buckley Jr.

But OTOH I can also name you tons of liberal anti-Communists, from Harry Truman on down. I'd love for you to recite the names of a tenth as many conservatives back then who were fighting the American caste system right here at home. If you want to play the "fellow traveler" game, the National Review and Human Events crowd have every bit as much to answer for as some naif like Henry Wallace. And there were a hell of a lot more of those types on "your" side.

There's no question that any sentient human being with access to a newspaper would have to have been been deaf, dumb and blind not to figure out what Communism was all about, underneath the utopian rhetoric. What, exactly, was the excuse for the "conservative" fellow travelers of the Dixiecrats? Didn't they "know" about the effects of segregation? Did they get their views of race from Margaret Mitchell? Or was it that they just didn't give a shlt?

Well biggest of all, they want a stable Iraq, and we want a stable Iraq.

Do you really think this? I actually think quite the contrary.

I think Sam's idea in #5164, while a good start, are not going to go nearly far enough to satisfy the Iranians. A couple of thousand posts back I suggested possible carrots. Iran is not North Korea. My fear is that they are going to want a lot more than the US is willing to give.

Obviously the only way to find out is through diplomacy, and we need a President who is going to engage constructively, even with powers that are unfriendly. The current President has found it tough enough to deal with friendly countries.

has anybody actually read all of its content?

Not in one sitting, but I have read it all. I hope this thread never, ever ends.

If that's a misconception on David's part, okay.

I don't know what David is talking about here but if history is any guide he's quite likly misrepresenting something somewhere. I haven't read anywhere near the totality of this thread. I read the days that I post and not much more. If someone was complaining about Hillary mentioning the Air Force then they were wrong and not representative of Obama's stated positions. I have some doubt that this is as clean and simple as that though.

Again, do you see no purpose in Nixon going to China or Reagan sitting down with Gorbachev?

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on this, but didn't Reagan have a set of pre-conditions in place before he sat down to talk with Gorbachev? Also, isn't the major difference that the USSR was not sponsoring terrorism? I don't claim that spreading communism isn't bad, but it seems to me that what the USSR was doing is different in kind from what Iran does.

Again, if I'm off track here, I'm happy to be corrected.

Do I have time to say that this is my first time appearing in this thread?

A couple of thousand posts back I suggested possible carrots. Iran is not North Korea. My fear is that they are going to want a lot more than the US is willing to give.

What sorts of things do you think the Iranians want that we're not prepared to give. I'm not saying this isn't the case. I'm sure if they could get it they'd want dominion over all of former Persia. But they're not going to come to the negotiating table expecting to get Asia Minor out of the deal.

Do you really think this? I actually think quite the contrary.

You think Iran wants an unstable regime on their border? Or you think we want Iraq to remain unstable?

(Man, that ignore list gets weaker all the time.)

didn't Reagan have a set of pre-conditions in place before he sat down to talk with Gorbachev?

One would assume. One would also assume that Obama would have a similar set of pre-conditions. The difference between his pre-conditions and those of the current admin is that they're not "give us everything we want and then we'll deign to give you and audience at court."

Also, isn't the major difference that the USSR was not sponsoring terrorism?

No.