Halfway down the Danube

The Texas Republican Party would be banned if it was made up of Muslims.

I'd be more impressed if there weren't quite so much pandering going on everywhere I look. But we've seen this before. Gotta do what ya gotta do, I suppose.

I, too, would be more impressed if there was, I dunno, even a pretense of intellectual consistency going on in the debate.

And pace, Bernard, but I'm also not impressed by your arguments to Historical Necessity. You don't "gotta do" anything (except ride an elephant should the opportunity arise, because, well, ya gotta).

But I see why you live over the hills, man. As should be crystal to everyone by now, wossname doesn't believe in the national security premises of the people he has aligned himself with.

Historical Necessity? Political necessity. Just ask Hillary C. and George P.

I hate to say it, but I don't know that I'd put too much weight on consistency, either. I'm willing to bet that Krugman will be a great deal more consistent on this than any of the pols, more power to him, but that will just make him 0 for 2 in my eyes. Me, I don't see any deep intellectual positions here beyond "A-rabs = Dangerous Critters", which makes most of the participants' positions doubly ironic, Carter aside.

But let’s be serious. Unless DPW, working through P&O, is going to play "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and start replacing Teamsters from Bayonne named Vinnie with AQ plants named Achmed, I don't exactly see where the threat is. Granted, the AQ playbook apparently doesn't prevent you from visiting strip-joints or drinking yourself blind, but I still don't think they'd "pass". Besides, this has all the inherent logic of trying to prevent 9/11 by banning Arab cab-drivers from Newark Airport. It isn't the terminus you have to worry about. If a freighter out of Antwerp with 5kt onboard sails into Port Elizabeth, it won't much matter whether the stevedores ever unload it or anybody ever checks the manifest.

And we moved in late 1999. Call it a bow to historical inevitability and determinism. My transformation into a Stalinist has been in the works a long time. :^)

There's intellectual consistency, which I prefer. There's political expediency, which I can understand. But then there's this, which makes no freakin' sense either way! Generally, if you're working from a cui bono conception of politics, you want to bono the cui that will _help_ you.

(Although, as you note, it's kinda fun watching some of the 180-degree spin. Better than the Olympics.)

I really don't have a problem with it, either way. It's the lack of any sense of mind behind it that bugs me.

Bernard, it is very irritating to see you recycle an argument about CNOOC that has nothing to do with the actual worries posed by Krugman. It is much more irritating since we had a conversation about it on another forum.

"0 for 2 in my eyes." Yes.

It is doubly vexing to see you compare bipartisan opposition to the Dubai port deal with the insanity of the Texas GOP platforms. These are not like events, on any dimension.

Note that the above is not a defense of the objections to the Dubai deal.

Anyway, I call sloppy reasoning and false analogy. You have got to stop hanging out with the thimbleheads on Tacitus, or just admit that you enjoy the cynical pose and don't give a rat's ass for logical consistency or factual analysis. (And I mean your own consistency, not that of the people you criticize.) Trying to have it both ways does not serve you well.

"it is very irritating to see you recycle an argument about CNOOC that has nothing to do with the actual worries posed by Krugman."

If you're talking about his objections to the CNOOC deal, my arguments had everything to do with his (ridiculous) points on the matter. If you're talking about his thoughts on DWP, I think you'd better start reading more carefully. Quoth:"I'm willing to bet that Krugman will be a great deal more consistent on this than any of the pols, more power to him, but that will just make him 0 for 2 in my eyes." I'd say that any reasonable reader of that sentence would walk away with two facts: A) I don't yet know what Krugman has said about the matter, if anything at all -and- B) I'm pretty sure where he's going to come down without requiring the slightest inkling what he'll literally write.

I can't help it if your heroes are easy to read, man.

"It is doubly vexing to see you compare bipartisan opposition to the Dubai port deal with the insanity of the Texas GOP platforms. These are not like events, on any dimension."

Mmm-hmm. Yup, that looks like a rational, testable statement. Boy, you've pounded me into the ground with your sharp thinking on the subject(s). Mercy.

Jeez, Bernard, you say some really stupid things. So let's do some intellectual bitch-slapping. Damn, dealing with you is but like right fun.

(1) The objections --- of Krugman and others --- to the CNOOC deal were based on the idea that China might keep petroleum off the world market should the price spike. There are reasonable bases upon which to argue that China won't do this. You don't do that, because you seem to like to pretend to be stupid. Rather, you set up a straw man about a war with China. "Ridiculous"? Man, you hang out too much with dittoheads.

(2) The objections to the Dubai port deal are based on the fear that saboteurs and terrorists might enter the country via the company. There are reasonable bases upon which to argue that existing security screening makes this a minor threat. There are also reasonable bases upon which to argue that such terrorists could not do much harm even if they entered the country via the company, and even if they sabotaged the ports. You do not make these arguments, because they are not consistent with your view that the Constitution should be thrown out in the case of Jose Padilla. Instead you set up a straw man about low-yield nuclear weapons. Which is another way of saying that you like to pretend to be stupid.

(3) Both of the above risks are real, although there are reasons to argue that they are too small to cancel out the benefits of allowing the Chinese to overpay for petroleum assets or the Emirate Arabs to efficiently manage our port infrastructure. The worry that the Chinese might put missiles in Panama, however, is not merely small: it's zero.

Oh, dip! Smackdown! "Not like things," seriously argued! As in, "small" is a different category from "zero."

And the irony is that there are reasonable arguments to support your positions on these topics. Well, not the Constitution thing, but the CNOOC and DWP deals.

You really should learn how to form a coherent argument. The strange thing is that you used to know how, but you seem to have forgotten. Stranger still, you don't even seem to have any sort of ideology any more. After all, small security risks are worth violating the Sixth Amendment, but not worth restricting foreign investment? This is odd.

Anyway, Bernard, I must retain some respect for you, no matter how often you disappoint. Either that or this has degenerated into poking a monkey with a stick. I like to think not. After all, you could change your mind on Padilla, stop making baseless ad hominem statements, drop your silly affectation of world-weary cynicism, and begin to make serious arguments that actually might educate and inform the people who hear them.

Ahem....horsecrap. For starters, a guy who says stuff like "So let's do some intellectual bitch-slapping. Damn, dealing with you is but like right fun" and "Oh, dip! Smackdown!" probably shouldn't be talking about stupid affectations. For future reference, you are not Kid Rock, you are not a cowboy, sucker-punching some Spaniard over a barfly is not a major source of street-cred, and you probably couldn't find Compton on a map, professor. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a long drive. Don't worry your pretty little head over it, further comments on how you manage to misread Krugman, me, the P&O deal and just how relatively important Padilla and DWP are as threats are forthcoming. Dumbass.

(If you'd prefer, we can move this over to my site. Or not. Doug, Claudia and Carlos might appreciate some filler during the move. Your call, since it appears to me that you're coming into this under-armed to begin with.)

Gentlemen, gentlemen. This is a family blog. We do not use words like "b*tch-slap" here. (Look three posts down? Hi Jacob!) I myself prefer the word "puppy-hug".

Not that I like either of you any less, but I would appreciate it if you both continued the discussion elsewhere.

My apologies. Consider it moved.

Well, I certainly do respect you and the forum. So, with the caveat that the neighborhood in question would be East Harlem, not Compton, but which changes not the fact that Bernard is correct about my own stupid affectations, I also apologize for the inappropriate phraseology and remove myself from the conversation. I'm sure that I will provide an appropriate whipping boy over at wherever.com.