I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!
Name: Tom Grey
Now a libertarian paternalist - progressive Conservative. I want lots of choices for people, with very responsible oriented defaults. Political, smaller gov't oriented, pro- Christian with tolerance and against changes reducing Christian influence.
Mo'nonymous on Real Life Business L...
Mo'nonymous on Real Life Business L...
3-d Analysis to Election Results
A family video - Grey Squirrels
Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate
Fantasy Bush speech on Sudan as Genocide
Fantasy Condi speech at the NAACP
Harry Potter, Ender Wiggin, (no) Help for Iraqi People
Kerry's Lie -- the Moral Superiority War
Lessons to be learned from Abu Ghraib and Stanford
Money grubbing hate leads to Jew hate
NATO Human Rights Enforcement Group - HReg
Tax Loans
Tax Loans to Solve Immigration
Three Loves plus a New Heart
Will Iraq become a bloodbath?
zee AEI-Brookings papers on Libertarian Paternalism
today
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
un
abortion
africa
aid
blogs
cartoon war
christianity
corruption
darfur
democracy
economics
envy
europe
euston
free press
gas tax
gays
genocide
greys
harry potter
hearts and minds
human rights
immigration
innovation
iran
iraq
islamofascism
israel palestine
jobs
justice
katrina
leftist
maximum employment
media
military
moral hazard
morality
mortgages
music
pajamas media
peace
politics
poverty
property rights
reform
responsibility
secular
singularity ai
supreme court
tax loans
technology
terrorism
torture
troop withdrawal
unreal perfection
vietnam
world cop
wot
visited *loading* times
I wrote an article for Blogger News Network on his great speech.
Candle lit fires of freedom are burning bright – Speech of Pres. Bush in
President George W Bush, in the first visit to
He reminded the audience that nearly 17 years earlier (Spring of 1988), that square had seen another gathering under a different form of government. The Communist suppression of religious freedom was being peacefully protested people praying, singing hymns, and lighting candles. Slovaks, even under the Communists, wanted to live free, and were only stopped by brutal thugs, commie police willing to use violence against the Candlelight Manifestation.
My wife was at that Candlelight Protest; singing and praying for religious freedom. I'll always be proud of her.
WaPo has a better, December post on Darfur.
NYT has a half fine article on Darfur, with 4 photos. Disgusting that "never again" ... is happening again. Because the UN refuses to call it genocide, though Kristoff totally fails to mention that inconvenient fact. Instead, a few digs at US indifference, not Kofi Annan's, are given.
Sudan is on the Human Rights commission -- Kristoff is silent. There was a recent report on the "humanitarian disaster" -- but it carefully concluded it wasn't genocide because they couldn't prove "intent".
But there ARE "war crimes against humanity". Yet this issue means there needs to be a trial, and the UN wants to use the ICC at The Hague, which the US is not in favor of because of fears it might be used to prosecute Americans. Darfur folk will be murdered because the anti-Americans want to push the use of The Hague.
Part of me wants the US to give in, and just let the Euros do it "their way" -- so all the blood is on them. It's clear the anti-Americans will try to blame it on the US in any case, yet France and Germany look weaker and weaker.
Another part of me wants the US Congress to declare war on Sudan, and institute regime change and democracy there, including the possibility of holding referendums to split the country up.
But the blame needs to be on the UN. Not genocide, means action is not required. And it seems the Jan Egeland should share some blame, too -- he complains about the security. But doesn't mention that his own org, the UN, refuses to call it genocide.
It IS genocide. It should be stopped. Kofi should be fired because of Darfur; because of Rwanda, he should never have been hired. The US should direct its "UN" budget to Darfur, instead of fat, worse than useless bureaucrats.
My temp. is 38.5, too sick to spend much time here. Read my Legends on the Left, please.
Fine new New Republic article on the failure of liberals (Leftists).
For months, liberals have been peddling one disaster scenario after another, one contradictory fact somehow reinforcing another, hoping now against hope that their gloomy visions will come true.
I happen to believe that they won't. This will not curb the liberal complaint. That complaint is not a matter of circumstance. It is a permanent affliction of the liberal mind. It is not a symptom; it is a condition. And it is a condition related to the desperate hopes liberals have vested in the United Nations. That is their lodestone. But the lodestone does not perform. It is not a magnet for the good. It performs the magic of the wicked. It is corrupt, it is pompous, it is shackled to tyrants and cynics. It does not recognize a genocide when the genocide is seen and understood by all. Liberalism now needs to be liberated from many of its own illusions and delusions. Let's hope we still have the strength.
I happen to believe that they won't. This will not curb the liberal complaint. That complaint is not a matter of circumstance. It is a permanent affliction of the liberal mind. It is not a symptom; it is a condition. And it is a condition related to the desperate hopes liberals have vested in the United Nations. That is their lodestone. But the lodestone does not perform. It is not a magnet for the good. It performs the magic of the wicked. It is corrupt, it is pompous, it is shackled to tyrants and cynics. It does not recognize a genocide when the genocide is seen and understood by all. Liberalism now needs to be liberated from many of its own illusions and delusions. Let's hope we still have the strength.
Seems really cool; perhaps I'll join. Of course, no time, now.
Many Bush-haters are allied with terrorists; something Bush supporters have long known that most Bush-haters deny. Kurt Anderson of the NY Metro is trying to grow up. He writes from Bush-hate Leftist city,
The success of the elections poses a major intellectual-moral-political problem for people in this city. The cognitive dissonance is palpable. …
I have heard it said again and again that liberals’ ineffectiveness derives from their inability to see the world in the simple blacks and whites of the Limbaughs…
But now our heroic and tragic liberal-intellectual capaciousness is facing its sharpest test since the collapse of the
Soviet Union . Back then, most of us were forced, against our wills, to give Ronald Reagan a large share of credit for winning the Cold War. Now the people of this Bush-hating city are being forced to grant the merest possibility that Bush, despite his annoying manner and his administration’s awful hubris and dissembling and incompetence concerning, just might—might, possibly—have been correct to invade, to occupy, and to try to enable a democratically elected government in Iraq …. Iraq
Of course, for all but a nutty fringe, it is not a matter of actually wishing for an insurgent victory, but rather of hating the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team. ...
Like “radical chic,” a related
specialty, “liberal guilt” once meant feeling discomfort over one’s good fortune in an unjust world. As this last New York election cycle began, however, a new subspecies of liberal guilt arose—over the pleasure liberals took in bad news from U.S. , which seemed sure to hurt the administration. But with Bush reelected, any shred of tacit moral rationale is gone. In other words, feel the guilt, and let it be a pang that leads to moral clarity. Iraq
Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning
; either we hope for the vindication of Bush’s risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in a de facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. We can be angry with Bush for bringing us to this nasty ethical crossroads, but here we are nonetheless. Iraq
…The prospects of a freer, better
and the longer shot of a freer, better Iraq Middle East are worth some considerable American sacrifice. But we will not pay any price or bear any burden, as JFK rashly promised.
And now the terrible business of judging the correct price requires as much empirical rigor and moral clarity as we can muster, the sort of careful, “reality-based” judgments that liberals pride themselves on being able to make better than loony Evangelicals and cunning neocon dreamers. It won’t do simply to default to our easy predispositions—against Bush, even against war. If partisanship makes us abandon intellectual honesty, if we oppose what our opponents say or do simply because they are the ones saying or doing it, we become mere political short-sellers, hoping for bad news because it’s good for our ideological investment.
Bush-hate, so obvious and real that many Leftists not only accept, but even compete, verbally, to see who hates Bush more.
Which side are you on? Do you want Bush, AND democracy, to win? or Not?
Eason
My friend Ben, one of the biggest Bush-haters I know, nearly bet me $100 that the
http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2005/02/easin_eason_out.html
Marc Cooper, among others, is trying to say the
Bush-haters need to grow up.
Maybe getting fired from positions of responsibility will help.
I think Eason
Too bad Kurt didn’t give any numeric estimates for a “cost” that
PRIDE – the sin of Lucifer. And of so many anti-Christian intellectuals.
Hugh Hewitt apparently doesn't like the short version BlogStorm, since he prefers the more accurate Blog Swarm, which may lead to an Opinion Storm. Well, he's usually right. But not in this case. "BlogStorm" is too nice a word, and the Leftists will be using it, and Hugh should just accept it as newly defined; and perhaps enhance the definition of a Blog Swarm (lots of bloggers looking at the same story, linking to each other and to any source documents they can get.) Since most bloggers DO want an Opinion Storm from their work, they won't be objecting to the opponents attempt to dismiss their attacks as blogstorms in a bowl. Or teacup. In fact, the Fish Bowl on the famous.
RatherBiased reports that some of those "fired" aren't going quietly; at least not yet. Meaning not enough cash, so far -- but quite possibly willing to sue the bosses who did the real cover-up and are trying to make them, like John Howard at CBS, the scapegoats. (Via PowerLine)
It would be interesting to have an Org chart of who his bosses are. West, and above him Moonves?
And the CBS board of directors?
Names please; "CBS" doesn't ever "say" anything, only a (named or unnamed) spokesperson. In someone's name.
At some point, who the main advertisers are.
Moonves should be the next CBS head aimed at by the blog swarm - opinion storm ... BlogStorm.
By use of the old Lefty trick -- disinvestment. Boycott advertisers of CBS until they get honest news; start by firing Moonves.
Another likely target for the next BlogStorm trophy -- Kofi Annan of the UN.
Unmentioned by Jay Rosen is the (not so) curious fact that blogstorms mostly occur against those who oppose the US policy, and Bush.
Because the MainStream Media has FAILED to get the facts out -- so when blogs do it, it's news. The MSM has been so biased, for so long, they need top personnel shuffled. NOW. Same with the UN.
On the MSM, in the USA, adopting a boycott of advertisers seems like a likely strategy. The Left is already using it; has been. Time for pro-Americans, pro-Freedom, pro-balance in the news folk to use it, too.
Hugh helps
Here are the rules: Don't serially slander the military as assassins and torturers, and you can say whatever you want at Davos. Don't pass off obviously forged documents as super-"Scoops!" in the middle of a presidential election, and you can intone all the absurd "anchor" sayings you want. Don't cover for plagiarists, and you can be the off-the-cliff lefty editor for as long as you want. Don't say the memory of Christmas-Eve-in-Cambodia is "seared, seared" in your memory and then say "oops," you were mistaken, and folks won't question your credibility on other war-stories. Don't appear to endorse segregation, and you can be the Leader. These aren't high bars. Cross them.
But the people there now, can't quite make it. We need new heads.
No surprise, the Sistani backed Shia won 48% of the vote. The NYT has the facts I want the most -- the numbers:
In reaching the official allocation of assembly seats, the election commission will use a complex system of proportional representation that will eliminate all parties that fall short of a threshold - about 30,750 votes - required to elect a single member to the assembly. The remaining parties will then get a slightly higher proportion of seats they won in the popular vote. It was this provision that appeared to have assured the Shiite alliance its assembly majority, although it fell short of a majority of the votes.
The Shiite coalition, backed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric, won 48 percent of the vote, against 26 percent for the Kurdistan Alliance, a partnership between Mr. Barzani's Kurdish Democratic Party and a rival Kurdish group, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which has said it will push its president, Jalal Talabani, for the post of president in the new government.
Dr. Allawi's party, the Iraqi List, won 14 percent. The remaining 12 percent was scattered among 108 other parties and alliances, none with more than 1.8 percent, the tally posted by Sheik Yawar's group, the Iraqis Party.
This is the first time I have read about the threshhold.
Gene (at Harry's Place) notes that the Neo-Nazis are anti-American allies of other anti-Americans.
It's kind of good to see the Neo-Nazis correctly stating that
It's kind of good to see the Neo-Nazis correctly stating that
Just as the Bush-haters have, implicitly, accepted the Islamofascists as "enemy's enemy" friends, many Bush-haters will rationalize accepting Nazis as third kind friends.
Just as the Bush-haters have, implicitly, accepted the Islamofascists as "enemy's enemy" friends, many Bush-haters will rationalize accepting Nazis as third kind friends.
The goodness is the increase in clarity of what the real-world alternatives to Bush's pro-freedom ideas are. There are many alternatives, but none that are free.
The goodness is the increase in clarity of what the real-world alternatives to Bush's pro-freedom ideas are. There are many alternatives, but none that are free.
Just as the Palestinian problem has been a lack of free speech, with no free press able to point out the mistakes of the Palestinian leadership. A free press in
Michael Totten at dinner with Hitch was a wonderful report, but I had some comments:
“So you’re my colonial master now, eh?!”
I DO think a lot of Iraqs prefer domination by an Arab monster like Saddam, to Western Secular freedom; but in particular, they reject any inferior status.
"Who are you to tell us what to do?!!!"
Who was it who said, "Who do I have to be?" -- the US (+UK + Coalition) who booted out Saddam; something the Iraqi people were unable/ unwilling to do by themselves (though betrayed by Bush 41 "read my lips").
There was an article about a proud Iraqi woman, who hated the sight of American soldiers -- because they reminded her she needed them for her own freedom. (In NYT a month ago?)
I want to know more about this emotion. It's underlying a huge amount of rage. Winning Iraqi hearts and minds for a democracy that the US people can support requires that Iraqis support more Human Rights than they've ever experienced.
You answered nicely: "nothing to do with us telling you what to do and everything to do with fighting fascism wherever in the world it exists."
Nicely but not totally honestly -- telling them NO to fascism, IS telling them what not to do. No less than Christians saying NO to gay marriage IS telling gays what not to do.
(Any discussion on the abortion/ homosexual culture wars the US is having?)
"more money and food once you got there" -- it's the Liberation's fault that Iraq has so little? Or more rage that the Arabs can't stop their own terrorist death squads. Or using the rage to justify blaming the rescuers for the far less than ideal effortless paradise.
Hitch is right that money and food is not the issue, but neither is it whether Iraqis can be bought with it.
Iraqis, quite likely like teens, will have to show themselves their independence of US control/ influence. I wonder what stupid thing(s) their elected leaders will do to demonstrate that no black woman is gonna tell them what to do; nor any Texan.
++Later, TmjUtah didn't like my response.
I come here to enjoy a wonderful tale of intellectual travel punctuated by a wee bit of worthwhile debauchery followed by a healthy dose of considered comment and somebody ups and runs screaming, nude, off the balcony into the pool.
Telling the Iraqis what to do is fascism?
I'm grateful such a fine commenter read and responded to my post. I'm a bit upset it was twisted into an inversion.
Telling them NO to fascism, IS telling them what not to do. Those Iraqis who DO want fascism, ARE being told NO. Just like Priests who DO want to have sex with underage men and boys are being told NO. And every "NO" is telling somebody "what to do". The US, and maybe eventually the UN, needs to get used to this truth. There are limits to freedom.
But there is something important about the difference between telling them DO this, and telling them DO NOT do this. The Ten Commandments are, primarily, DO NOT: 1) have another god before God; 2) make [for worship?] any graven image; 3) take the Lord's name in vain [curse?]; 6) commit murder; 7) commit adultery; 8) steal; 9) bear false witness; 10) covet
Most universally are against murder, adultery, theft, and false witnesses. But there are two positives: 4) keep holy the Sabbath; 5) honor your father and mother. When Christians tell people to do either of these positives, they are pretty clearly telling folk to DO something.
When Christians, or the state, tell people to not murder, they are telling them to NOT do something. I'd call this a negative order, I'm sure there's some philosophical difference. But the point is that it IS an "injunctive" -- An injunction is a Court Order which requires a person (or company) to do, or not do, a particular act.
I imagine that the US has a de facto injunctive against the Iraqis getting a fascist gov't. But the Arab is complaining -- who is America to give Iraq ANY injunctives? That's not quite the most important question. The important question is "what ARE the injunctives?" This question should push folks to ask about the limits of freedom that the US is imposing.
I'm disappointed TmjUtah deliberately, or carelessly, misrepresented what I said, while not addressing the issue about which injunctives are reasonable.
I think NO fascism is a fine restriction; and NO kings, too. And NO excessive restrictions on free speech -- with excessive to be worked out primarily by the future Iraqi governments, and their future constitution, and future decisions. In the meantime, banning Al Jazeera's pro-death squad, anti-democracy coverage seems reasonable.
Life is beautiful, when you're in love with a wife who loves you.
There is no other decision in one's life more important than choosing the person to spend the rest of your life with.
Steve Silver's main true point is that bloggers WILL depend on reporters for basic news facts.
His main false point is the idea that there has been enough of the blogstorm "witchhunts", and in particular too much over Eason Jordan.
Jordan should be fired. Each and every top News person, who makes terribly unprofessional remarks, should be subject to "accountability". If a politician, election. Like Bush -- an accounting, and he was reelected. Like Clinton had in both his reelection AND his impeachment (yeah he LIED, but it was only to allow him to have promiscuous sex and harrass and abuse women, so it's OK).
The News folk have NEVER covered news personalisties "as news" -- who is Dan Rather, what does he believe, what policies does he support. We need a new Media Choice Theory to look at individual decision incentives. The blog witchhunts are a way towards accountability in the Leftist, anti-capitalism, anti-American, anti-Christian MSM. Jordan's accountability means he should be fired.
Not Dawn Eden, who is pro-life, and fired for being pro-life.
Anybody who is tired of the witchhunts -- look for some business blogs. Or God blogs. There's more every day.
(What do you burn besides witches?
Moore Witches )
I am "against" torture -- but of the physical, not phsycological kinds. I favor tough interrogations. Stanford Magazine had a good story on it about Afghanistan. But today, "Stop Torture" means no serious interrogation.
The world has been developing a huge double standard -- the US is supposed to be perfect, and if not, it's terrible, but the rest of the world gets a pass. When US prisons include many stories of rape, and other abuses, I am NOT going to condemn the US military in a war zone, getting mortared almost daily, for being a little too rough.
Yes, Abu was a "little" too rough -- relative to real beheadings the insurgent death squad types carry out, as policy. And Abu abusers ARE getting punished, and a Gen. was relieved of command. (Over a year ago.)
Part of torture is intimidation, so that others "co operate" and do as they're told without torture. The anti-Iraqi death squaders did this, rather effectively, in Fallujah after April 2004.
The unwillingness of the US folk to use more torture reflects well, by our standards, on the US forces. With no credit by the Left, only continued "not perfect = terrible!"
I'm not at all certain how it is seen by the Arabs -- I get the feeling that many of them knew the "torture", the abuses, that the Leftist press was saying was so terrible, was far less than what actually occurred under Saddam, or under the death squads -- or what will occur to those we render to other gov'ts (including the new Iraqi gov't.)
By THEIR standards, maybe we were too weak; meaning maybe we aren't serious; meaning maybe we're going to leave, and thus lose, and thus the death squad insurgents will take over. So ... maybe they think their rational self interest is to act enough in support of the death squads to be left alone, since the Americans won't do much, anyway.
The Sunni Arab support for the death squads is why they continue to be successful at killing Americans, and at killing those Iraqis trying to work with Americans. Remember, the US ran out on Vietnam, and let death squads win there -- and the Leftist press cheered this Leftist "victory".
When one can show me evidence that doing no serious interrogation of spy/ death squad/ insurgents produces faster victory, I'll strongly support ending torture, and rendering. (Utilitarian) Right now I suspect the opposite. In fact, I think if stronger, more "torture" like sleep deprivation interrogations had been used earlier, there would have been fewer attacks, so hundreds more Iraqis would be alive.
Can one honestly say you think weaker interrogations, rather than stronger, would have stopped more attacks and saved more lives? (one like Michael?)
Eason Jordan should be fired, now -- before the tape is released. He should have been fired in April, 2003, after admitting CNN only broadcast Saddam approved news of Iraq, while claiming to broadcast the truth.
Lefties are prolly right that Davos IS a "witchhunt" -- in the same way that anti-Nixon Lefties used Watergate as a witchhunt to get rid of Tricky Dicky. And as Rathergate was a witchhunt to get rid of the long-biased Rather. And as Abu Ghraid was, and is, a witchhunt to get rid of Rumsfeld, if not Bush.
I have my own "witchhunt:" to get regime change in Sudan, so as to stop the genocide. Witchhunt/ campaign -- there's not much difference. (Bill Moyers had a great apology for quoting fake witchhunt junk against former Env. Sec. James Watt, from PowerLine.)
The point is the targets, and the evidence. Kerry or Clinton lying about what they did or didn't do (Cambodia Christmas, have sex with that woman) may be different than sincere but (possibly) wrong beliefs (Saddam has WMDs).
Trent Lott was witchhunted out (good riddance); so was Raines at the NYT (good riddance) -- for what they actually did.
Nixon for ... what the tapes (secret? illegal?) showed he knew, when. (I voted for Carter because Ford pardoned the crook.)
Jordan should be fired. Prolly the BBC's Mr. Sambrook, too. (Yet I DO feel bad there such a pile up on him. Still, anybody who says he's right to avoid the criticism is a hypocrite if they criticize Bush for avoiding the LAT, for instance.) Let the witchhunts continue! Or stop reading poli blogs -- there are plenty of News sites. Heh heh. (see Jay's comments)
The fact that Eason Jordan believes the US military has targeted journalists is terrible. Jordan should be fired.
But part of it might be true -- it might be that "undertrained" US military personnel HAVE taken less than optimal care in protecting journalists, folk with cameras (that look like RPG weapons) instead of guns.
Lots of military folk ARE upset at the lousy coverage of the war: CNN's "truth" is only that truth which makes Americans look bad. If the military does 98 good things and 2 bad things, CNN makes sure the 2 bad things get lots of air play, and maybe there's a good thing, and maybe not. CNN has NOT been fair in its coverage.
CNN has to choose which side it is on -- it can NOT be "on the fence". It wants to be. It can't be.
What if there WAS a journalist, who supported the insurgents against the pro-democracy folk. And he deliberately set out to make the Americans look bad, and minimize the inhumanity of the insurgents. What if he truly wanted the US to lose, and was actively, and secretly, helping the insurgents, while claiming "publicly" that he was merely trying to be "objective". Let's say this person WAS, actually, committing treason -- being a "spy" and letting his friends know what the US forces were doing, where they were going, which houses were being raided. But there was no proof (and there wasn't going to be proof. So how do I know -- by assumption in this hypothetical)
If there was such a case, how would we know? If we knew, what should we do? Kurtz would say, because of the lack of proof, the traitor should be given the benefit of the doubt. That seems to be the main policy, but it's not clear to me that it avoids enough of the false negative errors (guilty going free). None of the non-embedded journalists deserve too much "benefit of the doubt" -- because to many journalist actions are as if they want the US to lose.
Easongate has the petition.
An anti-CNN advertiser boycott is set to start after 15 Feb. I would prefer it to start already!
CNN has been helping the death squads; and
Despite the great work of many bloggers, Mickey Kaus has the best rundown, so far; fisking Kurtz’s cover up article.
Jay Rosen at Press Think is also in cover up mode, “waiting for the ‘facts’”. Meaning the videotape that CNN seems to be censoring. But the FACT is that the video is not being released – that is the second most important fact in this two-story controversy.
One story is how
The other story is how the MSM news media is trying to kill the story, by pretending it’s not there, so hoping maybe it will go away. (CNN never had to ask Kerry to explain his Christmas in
We need to organize a boycott against CNN advertisers. Like General Mills.
Some of the many folks and blogs:
The new Easongate will prolly continue to have among the best things.
Rony Abovitz , who was AT the meeting and started it by writing Jordan's comments.
Rebecca MacKinnon, who was AT the meeting and agrees with Rony.
Michelle Malkin, "has laid the groundwork to break this wide open by getting David Gergen, Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd on the record. "
Hugh Hewitt, nice recent review of the NY Sun, much better than Kurtz at WaPo.
Sisyphus, trying to GET that WEF video, which might not be released, if the session was not "on the record".
LaShawn Barber, working to follow it, nicely.
American Digest, with the insight that Eason Jordan has gotten CNN access to all the dictatorships of the world, and that is what CNN stonewalling is trying to protect.
“While I researched a story on CNN's
Foer continues with a review of CNN coverage pre-Liberation
When Saddam won his most recent "election," CNN's
Reading Mr.
CNN needs to fire Eason
As this old Wired story shows, Trent Lott made some racist remarks and lost his job. Jordan should lose his job, too.
Jay Rosen, who thinks bloggers must choose between being "nice" to media folk who talk, and not.
Why do we have to choose, Jay? Some of us may want Sambrook fired, and/or Jordan fired, and some of us may want more "dialogue".
The press is the "fourth estate" of gov't -- but is NEVER covered, by the press, as if the individuals have decision making power over what is said or not.
It's not like Bush ("lied" about WMDs), it's like Trent Lott. Jordan, AND Sambrook, and even Mr. Jay Rosen, are all playing at 4th estate politics.
Jay's beloved MSM Contraption is broken. Either Jordan answers the questions of what he said, AND what he meant, AND what he meant earlier (US military tortures journalists), AND how reliable he is (he already admitted CNN only broadcast news Saddam approved up -- for access/ money/ ratings, NOT truth) (his admission nearly ignored by MSM).
Or he stonewalls, and others who heard him are reported on (yes, reports from the blogosphere -- MSM lost its censorship.), and he becomes guilty until the videotape shows otherwise. But, if he IS guilty (as I now believe), the videotape will only show it.
So then what? CNN should fire Jordan.
With or without the videotape, CNN should fire Jordan (Trent Lott lost his chairmanship for much, much, less.)
AND the BBC should fire Sambrook.
Not for talking with blogs -- for lying INSTEAD of being honest, while representing their news organizations and being charged with increasing trust.
Jay, should be on the side of revolution and transparency and truth. Resign or show the videotape (first?). You're having personal conflicts because you <i>know</i> the Contraption is broken, but you love the idea of an MSM that is honest.
The Rathers, Jordans (?), and ALL top TV news anchors get paid MUCH more than the US president (seldom mentioned, why is that?); they should get the same scrutiny. As individuals.
You know about Public Choice Theory? (J. Buchannan won a Nobel Prize in Economics for it.) It covers the individual incentives of gov't decision makers, and how they mostly make decisions based on those incentives.
We need a Media Choice Theory that would show how media personal ALSO make decisions on what they say, and not; and what stories they cover & publish, or not.
Right now, the MSM blackout on Jordan's lies are pretty damning.
Other cover this, like Sisyphis.
Perhaps you should also suggest organizing a BOYCOTT of CNN and its advertizers, like General Mills?
Until they fire Eason Jordan.
The boycott itself becomes "news", after a while -- and you know how reporters don't want to belive that they or their company or their own words are ever "news".
++The Sambrook thread (next) is already better, now -- but it's good to see Jay, Hugh, and Van der Leun (the "blacklist" writer) in the comments.
Because the media has become SO biased, most stories are really two -- the facts (what Jordan said), and the media coverage of those facts; or coverup.
Robin Burk, and Jay, keep counseling "patience" -- which IS good with respect to facts about what Jordan said.
But it's NO GOOD with respect to the MSM coverup, denial by non-coverage, denial that there even IS a story.
Jordan should be treated like ... Trent Lott! Lott made racist comments (unrelated to his votes), he got booted out of his prestigious job. And the Rep bloggers were Against him for his mouth.
This Davos LIE (?) is combined with Jordan's prior statement that US military tortures journalists (implying targeted torture? lousy story, not clear); AND his admission that CNN acted like Iraq's Min. of Info for Saddam.
Jordan should be fired. Unless he can show reason why not. The burden of proof, in the mostly non-accountable CNN, MSM, Contraption world, is now on Jordan.
The FACTS include the stonewall coverup. Nixon got "fired" over the coverup. Actually, Rather did too -- a "next day" apology would have saved him (prolly).
Jordan should be fired, too. And maybe his CNN boss -- who IS that, by the way??? Lousy, lousy reporting on the MSM power structure; little accountability, all that power ... corruption should surprise nobody.
(Actually kind of a complement to the good hearts in the MSM that it has taken SO LONG to become this corrupt. Like Gollum resisting the ring)
Iraq's Friends of Democracy has a fine post. Great praise for Sistani. Was in comments of follwoing.
Mary at Michael's on hypocrisy.
Dave R., c'mon; sometimes I have a long (too boring to even comment upon) post, too.
Animals eat, have sex, often fight/ compete for the privilege of having sex, and sleep. That's, uh, about it for most mammals.
Except humans. Who do ALL of that, plus look for meaning. Outside of sex. And it's no surprise that every serious, large, multi-generation religion has a lot to say about sex. (Suddenly ... MARS needs women. Um, maybe Iraqi men are worried that, at some point, AMERICAN soldiers need women? And, um, the war wasn't about oil, it was about those Iraqi lovelies that Iraqi men have long been lusting over and not getting enough porno satisfaction with... nah...)
But America is both Top Dog in the world, AND claiming moral superiority. If there's anything normal folk don't like it's too much moral superiority -- the Left hates it from the Christians; and the Right is now showing how often the Left violates their own moral superiority codes: eg "free speech -- except nothing offensive to PC sensibilities"; and Truth to Power, but no Eason Jordan lies being mentioned by the powerful MSM.
And just like the Rich and Famous in the US, or the UK (the Royals... who cares that Harry thinks the Nazis can be a joke?), get the most attention -- everywhere on Earth, they think the US doesn't pay enough attention to THEM! (Just like MJT doesn't pay enough attention to moi. Hey, 4:30 am; supposed to be preparing my lectures.)
The world pays attention to the single SuperPower, and hates that THEY do not have that power, that super (duper?) power. Dems in America. Everybody else everywhere else.
And whenever (morally superior? ha!) Bush makes a mistake (not perfect, not perfect!!!), that is proof, in their eyes, that THEY should have that super duper power instead of Bush.
So God must have made a mistake, or something ...
[see, I warned you. As long as but quite different.]
[But I was commenting here earlier. I think.
Wine. Is. Red. But now gone.]
Template by Splinder.com | header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de