Liberty Dad - a World Without Dictators

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!

About me

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.

Links

Legends in my own mind

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

And the blogroll

Counter

visited *loading* times

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Thursday, 30 June 2005

Fascists with a liberal face = Leftists

Dean says we need to "call fascists and fascist apologists what they are ... Instead we sometimes call them "liberals"

I call them Leftists, but they ARE fascists...with a human face.

And the Chinese are rapidly becoming National Communist fascists, too.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/30/05 01:28 | link | comments
leftist

Will Israel pre-emptively attack Iran?

Bill Quick also writes about Israel, maybe nuking Iran before they get nukes.

I claimed that, if Kerry had won, Israel would have to do a pre-emptive strike before Bush left office.

I will not be surprised if Bush doesn't give the mullahs a "verifiably-no nukes" ultimatum as Iraq security forces get strong enough to stand alone.

And a LOT of those 140 000 troops move OUT of Iraq real real quick -- into Iran.

It's confused in my own mind as to whether I merely hope this happens, or actually think it will.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/30/05 01:18 | link | comments

The Leftist media wants Bush to lose

The Leftist media is more interested in making Bush lose than in having America win in Iraq, or helping Iraqi people create a free and democratic country.

People need to understand that the Leftists "don't want the US to lose" -- but they DO want Bush to lose; and they know if Iraq becomes free, Bush looks good. And Reps look good. So ... Iraq can never look good.

On the other hand, Cheney needs to end this "last throes" junk. If true, it'll be great in a month or 6 when the Iraqi Sunnis really stop letting terrorists murder the neighbors. The LACK of successful bombings will demonstrate it really IS the end. If it's NOT going to be mostly over in 6 months, or 12 months, it is really stupid to follow the same Vietnam mistake of too high expectation of quick victory. Even if he really believes it is near. (see Bill Quick on Leftist Bias in reporting on Bush's speech)

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/30/05 00:55 | link | comments

Wednesday, 29 June 2005

Democracy in Iraq will win

Great comment on WSJ by: Bob Holtby - Salmon Arm, Canada

I was a Canadian student in the U.S. in 1967-68. Vietnam was on everyone's minds then, as it appears to be now. There are some critical differences between Vietnam and Iraq. In Vietnam, the U.S. (and France before that) kept supporting right wing dictatorships that never had the support of the people. Even Ted Kennedy's brothers were involved in a coup to change dictators.

The only real leadership that had a Vietnamese face was Ho Chi Minn.

No one tried democracy no matter what lip service was paid to "Vietnamization." And that's the difference. Iraq will eventually become a functioning democracy if the U.S. continues to support the democratic processes. That is the noble enterprise that Vietnam was not. That is the purpose that makes the sacrifices of your men and women so worth while. That will be the reward of the Bush policy.

I feel some shameful regret that my country will not join yours in this, the noblest of enterprises.

Above was all Bob.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/05 15:58 | link | comments

The Shah as a domino after Vietnam

WSJ suggests how terrible it was for the US to leave Vietnam, including this bit about the consequences:

If this was it, then maybe we could accept a defeat once in a while. But walking away from the overarching moral struggle proved disastrous across the world. After Congress shut off funding to the Republic of Vietnam, U.S. influence receded in the face of communist insurgency, and South Vietnam quickly fell in 1975. The emboldened Soviets were then free to press their interests in Africa, South America and, yes, the Middle East. The shah of Iran fell just a few years after Saigon. Radical Islamic terrorism got a big push from the Soviets.

Unfortunately, we left Vietnam and it was terrible. I wish Miniter had explicitly noted the Killing Fields, because of commie victory after we left.

It might also have been more balanced to note that the US supported the Taliban against the Greater Evil Empire in Afghanistan --with the fine caveat that Bush has declared a changed direction from this prior Realpolitik

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/05 15:50 | link | comments

Fine Bush speech, no withdrawal date

Bush made a fine speech, and highlighted the failures of the terrorists:

we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.

'Terrorists failing'

These are savage acts of violence - but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives.

The terrorists - both foreign and Iraqi - failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty.

They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population.

And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.

The terrorists are actually failing, much more, than Bush. But the media nearly never mentions the terrorist failures, since they are Bush successes.

"The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of 11 September 11 if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden.
For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch."

Do Dems want Zarqawi or Bin Laden to win in Iraq? It seems to me that Dems would rather have a Dem win the white house AND accept a genocide, than a Rep win and fight genocide.

Bush directly addressed the question of a withdrawal timetable:

"Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake.

Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis - who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.

It would send the wrong message to our troops - who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve.

And it would send the wrong message to the enemy - who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.

We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed - and not a day longer."

This is all very true, but I wish he would do just a little bit more, and compare the calls for withdrawal from Iraq and from Germany/ S. Korea/ and Kosovo.

None have timetables; and all have been going on for longer. And leaving early is a serious mistake.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/05 15:34 | link | comments
iraq, wot , troop withdrawal

An Iranian revolution, maybe

Dafydd (at Patterico's) has a post about revolution in Iran, based on the students.

I pray and hope Iran is ready, but fear the mullahs are going to attempt to do a China/ Tianamen crack down; accept economic progress without political freedom.

If they did it right, they could prolly get away with it. I expect them to do it wrong — and the US troops next door in Iraq much leave MUCH faster than currently projected.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/05 14:47 | link | comments

No carpetbaggers

Dennis the Peasant has a fine post on an important issue -- no carpetbaggers!
If a Rep, or a Dem, wants to represent folk, he should live there and represent THOSE folk.

Daschle prolly lost for similar reasons, don't you think?

China is going to be a bigger problem, as they become more National Communist fascists.

He also has a well named post on Pathetic Progressives

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/05 14:42 | link | comments

Spread Freedom and Democracy

Roger comments (on the NYT Who are Americans to Think that Freedom is Theirs to Spread?)

“our best hope for living together well (if at all) is democracy. Unlike Ignatieff, I don't care if that comes from the United States, "God" or whoever. Call me whatever you want, but don't call me late for the (democracy) lunch.”

What is MOST important is limited gov't -- limited to respecting and protecting Human Rights (the negative ones -- those that cost nothing like Free Speech, Free Religion).

Democracy is the most sustainable way to get there; occassionally inferior in practice to benign dictatorship, but no dictatorship is sustainable over generations.

A World Without Dictators is achievable and desirable; and we can't have a world at peace WITH dictators.

The Leftists think we can.

Norm writes about Vivian Gornick’s The Romance of American Communism:

Ideas, dolly, ideas. Without them, life is nothing. With them, life is everything.

Norm explains:

Gornick's story is of how idealism shapes us, brings out the best and the worst. That hook on the soul turned ordinary men and women, living in a kind of animal twilight, into people who felt themselves no longer alone but intimately connected with the fate of all humanity.

The Left is full of their unrealistic ideals. The realistic ideals, like A World Without Dictators, are not so interesting.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/05 13:45 | link | comments

Unhappy with Right leadership

TmjUtah is Unhappy:

What we attempted to do beginning on September 12, 2001 is dying the the death of a thousand cuts. ...

Thousands, if not millions, more infidels are going to have to die at the hands of Islamists before idiots like Durbin and Truth and AI and the readership of Common Dreams gets it in their head that there are worse things than a Bush presidency. The muslim man in the street will just go back to business as usual once we are gone from the region. They will align with the powerful, or await the midnight knock on the door, as they have lived for generations.

I'm not nearly so negative. If the Islamists get, and use, a WMD, they will immediately get much, much heavier reprisals. We are trying to help them modernize without their own Thirty Year's War.

And it is the Catholic vs. Protestant issues that Muslims must learn to live with -- disagreements between Muslims. And between Islam and Christianity.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/05 13:38 | link | comments

Lincoln had no plan to free slaves

Callimachus blogs at Done With Mirrors, on the Media and other stuff. Like Ten Commandments, Flag Burning, and being Shocked! Shocked!, by Jay Rosen and the DSM.

Lincoln publicly disavowed any intention to free a single slave. By comparison, this was one of our more "honest" wars.

So I'll be reading him more, too.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/29/05 13:24 | link | comments (1)

Tuesday, 28 June 2005

Americans should go ROTC, Academy, Enlist

From many Leftist type comments.

Iraq is America’s mess. The situation there is the result of Bush’s poor judgment and Rumsfelt’s arrogance

Wrong. Iraq is NOT America's mess, nor Bush's mess -- it is Iraq's mess. Iraq. NOT America.

The anti-America/ anti-Bush thinking is stupid on this, and totally counterproductive.

When I joined the US Naval Academy, in 1974, I still thought Nixon was going to "win" in Vietnam -- since that was why he was re-elected by a huge landslide in 1972.

But Vietnam was not America's mess, either -- and when America left, thanks to successful Leftist anti-war folk, the genocide and Killing Fields of Vietnam and Cambodia were also not America's mess.

America is in Iraq to help Iraqis create a democratic society, which is able to modernize at a culturally sensitive pace. Hopefully the Iraqi culture will be respecting of Human Rights, at least more than in the other 20+ Arab countries of the ME.

And young folk should go to college under ROTC (or an Academy, if they can get a nomination), and be ready to serve their country to help Iraq -- or wherever in the world the duly elected Commander in Chief sends them.

Because America IS the greatest nation on earth -- although it is NOT perfect.

No other country leads in Free Religion, Free Speech, Property Rights (despite Kelo), and individual responsibility and authority as seen by Gun Rights. Comparisons to the real, not Unreal Pefection, are the right comparisons.

For almost every other country on earth, more of the people born in that country have chosen to leave for America, than Americans have chosen to leave America for them. (Including my future citizenship home in Slovakia.) I know of no counter-examples; not sure of Australia (a big draw for Slovaks, as is Canada).

[If Bush wants more folk to enlist, he should raise benefits to the military. He should substantially raise benefits for learning Arabic in any case--lack of Arabic speakers is prolly his biggest mistake; a big Clinton mistake, and Bush I mistake, too.]

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/28/05 18:22 | link | comments
democracy, iraq

Durbin worse than Rove

Michael claims I trashed Durbin for that [remark]

(But he didn't)

First, look at WaPo and NYT -- there is MUCH more Leftist anti-Rove coverage than anti-Durbin. And Durbin was first. The unfair injustice in the MSM treatment has to make anybody who wants to be fair be upset -- at anybody who is MORE anti-Rove than anti-Durbin.

Second, Durbin is on the ballot, HE was elected. Rove is just an operator. Bush-Bashers love to take any Rep's statements and claim a reason to oppose all Reps because of this one.

If the Republican Party were less polarizing and obnoxious,

You clearly do feel the obnoxiousness of Reps, though it's not so bad from my POV.

I missed your Durbin trashing -- no link?

Perhaps you meant when you said:

Some people in the comments are sticking up for Dick Durbin and his comparison of Gitmo to the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. I don’t particularly feel like getting into an argument about this, which is the reason I never even mentioned the flap until now.

So, when elected Durbin (D) compares Gitmo to Nazis, you don't want to argue. When Rove says, truthfully, that Al-Jazeera is using Durbin's words, you decide to

1) exaggerate Rove words into a misquote <i>Liberals=Traitors</i>

2) call Reps obnoxious.

You know I think you're the best writer on the web (AND I'm jealous!), but you're being intellectually unfair here.(My dream ... write better than MJT)

As I read more, what you say is worse:

But feeding anti-American pathologies was not Dick Durbin’s intention. He intended to get more humane treatment for prisoners at Gitmo – an honorable objective I happen to sympathize with. That couldn’t be any more obvious than it is.

What the ??? Making Bush look bad was Durbin's clear intention.

You are NOT trashing him, you're excusing him.

Honesty check please.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/28/05 18:18 | link | comments

Sunday, 26 June 2005

Concentrate on consequences

We'd be better off, now and later, concentrating on the consequences, not on the tangled motivations for an utterly irrational act. Of course, concentrating on the consequences is not real popular right now; but it's beginning to build a base.

I like this idea a LOT, from Steve Lovelady at Jay's (but DSM is only about motivations.)

Had Saddam given "unconditional surrender" to Blix, and proven that he had NO WMDS with total cooperation, I suspect there would have been no war. But I wasn't surprised in Feb, 2003, when Blix asked for more time, without being certain Saddam had no WMDs.

And I'm glad Bush said no -- UN Res 1441, obtained AFTER the DSM, requiring Saddam to prove NO WMDs, was enough for Bush to give the "go" to war. And implement the actions his neo-cons had been planning for since before his election. At any time before the actual invasion, Saddam could have surrendered.

It was clear to me that Saddam's intention was to survive as Iraq's leader without proving he had no WMDs, so as to continue to act as if he DID have them. (Big Man On Campus-like)

The true logic of invasion is fear. Fear that a ME with an uninvaded Iraq will get nukes and let terrorists get them and use them. That fear is both less, thanks to invasion, and more, thanks to time and Iranian development. I'm sure my own fear would have been more today without Bush's successful Liberation.

On topic, I look forward to a re-examination of the US Leftist policy of leaving Vietnam. Consequence -- genocide. Despite Nixon's lies, and bombing, and at least one My Lai. Two policies, fight evil commies or leave. Leftists wanted to leave, the US left, the consequence was genocide.

On Rwanda, two policies. Take action and stop it, or no action. Leftist policy, no action. Consequence -- genocide.

On Darfur, two policies. Take action and stop it, or no action. Leftist policy, use the ICC, call it a war-crime area but NOT genocide, indict some 53 war criminals ... no effective action. -- accept genocide.

I see most criticism of Bush as an argument using Unreal Perfection as the unspoken "higher standard" alternative -- to rationalize no action.

The world needs a cop. The US is not quite that cop -- but the UN is a joke. Show me a better real alternative and I'll happily support it. (I suggest a NATO based Human Rights Enforcement Group.)

The Left hates Bush so hysterically right now because we can all see the sproutings of democratic freedom -- successful consequences -- in Iraq, in Lebanon; in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgystan; in other ME elections. None are perfect, but they're a lot better than I expected before 9/11.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/26/05 05:40 | link | comments

A Balanced Free Press means more Americans Die

In the talk about Durbin and Rove, a key point is missing. Do the words of politicians in America influence the numbers of US soldiers who lose their lives?

Most folk think yes – I’m pretty sure it does. The words of the politicians AND the “news” published by the Media. There are two extremes and a middle for news, and politicians. Pro-war, balanced, anti-war; similar to pro-Bush, balanced, anti-Bush.

I explored this idea recently, converting the pro-War Bush faction into anti-terrorism. And specified two Media extreme i1regimes, which could also be any politician or pundit’s positions:

Anti-Terror; Balanced; Anti-Bush/ war. While it may be theoretically possible to be only anti-war or anti-Bush, all I know seem strongly both. One extreme Media position is as a Public Relations firm pro-Bush, anti-terror. The opposite extreme is PR anti-Bush, anti-war.

The Media DOES have an effect – but nobody knows how much. My estimates of US lives lost, following one of the three Media strategies:

1) Anti-Terror 500

2) Balanced 1000 (“optimal” historical balance, in the first draft)

3) Anti-Bush 2000

The very Idea of America, and the First Amendment rights of free religion and free press, implies support for (2) a balanced marketplace for ideas. Even though more Americans will die in a balanced Free Press, than in a PR anti-Terror Press.

Durbin’s words WILL cause an increase in recruits to terror, and thus more innocents being killed; so does a balanced press.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/26/05 03:20 | link | comments

Friday, 24 June 2005

Trial of Terrorists

The trial of some US based Islamist terrorists is occuring, finally.

But the NYT, which has repeatedly published pieces defending the terrorists, is now fairly quiet.

Their silence is a disgrace.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/24/05 13:22 | link | comments
free press

Public Relations vs Press and its effects

In Jan, 2004, BEFORE the elections, the US military disciplined Gen. Karpinski for her 2003 failures at Abu Ghraib. That was appropriate and sufficient.

It seemed to some of the rank and file soldiers that THEY were being made scapegoats; I guess they were but this story hasn't be followed. Because of this, some of the soldiers released the PICTURES of the abuses they participated in. Perhaps "See, I'm wasn't as bad as THESE folks; and it was on orders from above."

The pictures drove the story, and were a big part of the election -- how could Bush allow this?

It is war. Shit happens.

The pictures and hundreds of stories and some 26 deaths under US custody ... were NOT enough to convince the majority of US voters to boot Bush. Sullivan partly decided to switch from pro-Bush/ Iraq war, to anti-Bush, because of Abu.

Gitmo criticism is merely another stick of Imperfection with which to bash Bush. Leftists don't necessarily want better treatment for prisoners (why not look at US prison rape?), they want no prisoners and no war and especially no Bush as president. Wasn't there a silly "impeachment" show, too? Durbin's and Amnesty's hysterical criticism is merely more anti-Bush politics.

Politics which DOES embolden the terrorists, DOES justify in their minds how Bush's America is the "Great Satan", and DOES mean that more Americans, and especially Iraqis, are murdered by terrorists.

On Jay Rosen's PressThink there's an important issue about a Free Press -- does the Right just want a Public Relations effort for the war?

Naturally, none of the Left try to quantify any effects, nor look at the other side. 3 main points:

PR for Bush. Balanced. PR for terrorists.

Of course, the Press is usually anti something, so these three become:

PR anti-terrorist.

Balanced.

PR anti-Bush.

Does the PRESS have any effect? I'm sure it does. How much, don't know. My guess: a balanced press would result in 1000 Americans killed in the ME in 6 years of Bush action from 9/11. The fact that none know, or can know, doesn't change the tradeoffs; here's an example tradeoff list for the three choices, measured in American lives (at about the level I actually believe).

PR anti-Terrorist: 500 Americans killed.

Balanced Press: 1000 Americans killed.

PR anti-Bush: 3000 Americans killed.

With Zero, none, no mention of any US war mistakes, only PR pro-war "news" -- this will end the conflict with the least US lives lost.

With only PR anti-Bush, only news that makes the US look bad, or inadequate, or failing -- this will end the conflict with the most US lives lost.

Balanced will be near the middle.

The absolute numbers in the tradeoff are not known -- but the tradeoff is real. The Moral Hazard of a Free Press. Durbin's anti-Bush oriented remarks are, essentially AND deliberately, pro-terrorist, and will result in more US lives lost.

I support the balanced level -- with MORE US lives lost than a PR anti-terror minimum; but I admit to great sadness at each US life lost.

Michaels's frequent disgust at Abu, without comparison to other prison regimes, or the Stanford Experiment, seems excessive anti-Bush (pro-terrorist). Unreal Perfection of US soldiers is not an option, and the abuse cases seem to show the US is taking reasonable care to minimize torture.

The Clinton-Rwanda inaction policy, now being used by the UN in Darfur, is the alternate ME policy to ask Amnesty if they prefer.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/24/05 11:38 | link | comments (1)
unreal perfection, torture, moral hazard

It will NOT be fast.

One of the ironies is that if the Left had won the argument, and the US left the ME to cook without Iraq invasion, it's quite possible Iran or Libya would be even closer to a nuke.

And Blix would be inspecting one site or another in Iraq, and saying "not here, not there" -- truthfully (prolly) BUT Saddam would be smiling and saying no nukes. See (wink, wink)? (those UN fools can't even give Kosovo democracy). ... and there might have been a terrorist nuke already set off.

After a terrorist nuke, possibly even a bio WMD, there is likely to be a LOT less patience with slow motion democracy evolution. Likely the Saudis would be occupied, controlled, and their oil wealth taken to pay for the victims, and the states doing the enforcement of such punishment.

Democratic regime change starting in Iraq is the best hope for avoiding the VERY bloody showdown.

Victor Davis Hanson writes about ironies, but provides one. He states the problem that the US military wo't be beaten but we can still lose:

the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its hypocrisy and whiny logic — and to such a degree that it sometimes unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth another American soldier or dollar.

But then, unusually, VDH is wrong, maybe doubly so:

"we are close to creating lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq — states that are influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle Eastern terror."

We prolly are NOT that "close", and it was a Vietnam mistake to claim we were. VDH is correct that US impatience is how we can "lose" -- to the death squad gov't advocates.

The Left's support of the death squads is of the third kind: not friends, usually not friends of friends, but definitely enemy of the death squad enemy (liberal tolerant capitalism).

Anybody who says NAFTA was a "bad deal" for workers (in general) is economically ignorant. It helps workers a LOT in Mexico (or don't they count?), and it helps lower prices to all workers who buy stuff in America.

France has over 10% unemployment, US less than 6% -- most economists think "Full Employment Unemployment" is around 5.5% in the US. Plus inflation is low. (Too low unemployment is caused by excessive spending; Bush is prolly spending too much). World poverty is dropping, as capitalism is allowed to work in China and India.

The Bush-hate in the media has been married to a capitalism-hate on the Left, and it implicitly supports liberal-hate and especially America-hate by the Islamists.

Just as the media was successful in getting America to leave Vietnam (but they didn't want Killing Fields...), and was successful in getting America to stop supporting the Shah (but they didn't want Islamic fundamentalism...), and was successful in getting the world to end apartheid & racism in S. Africa and Rhodesia (but they didn't want Mugabe in Zimbabwe; er, well, they wanted him THEN, but he got worse (with Aid), so it's not the media's fault, not Bono's fault ...) -- the media's "high standards" of criticism against the best real system has resulted in too many horrible changes.

Higher Standards means Gitmo IS a Gulag

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/24/05 11:28 | link | comments

DSM - Downing Street Memo shows NOT lie

Jay Rosen’s PressThink on Downing Street Memos:

A key point made by Slate's Fred Kaplan: the memos show that the Bush and Blair teams thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's Iraq:

"the memos reveal quite clearly that the top leaders in the U.S. and British governments genuinely believed their claims." I agree the memos show that. It was this strong belief that led to the distortion of intelligence and the fixing of facts around a pre-determined policy.

"They're framing a guilty man in there." (about Saddam -- though it's not certain it was a frame)

Bush and Blair were convinced, by bad intelligence, that Iraq had WMDs – just like all of Iraq’s neighbors. Going to war over bad intelligence is different than going to war for a lie. And of course, it’s an escalation of already existing war, not exactly a “new war”. Like Afghanistan was; and Iran might be.

Jay’s note is about how some stories, ignored in the press, now get a second chance with the internet.

Since the MSM is so full of Bush-bashing, any appeals to the MSM are bound to be somewhat anti-Bush-bashing.

The Swift Vets are more reliable than Kerry signing, er, something or other -- but they were an anti-Kerry story that was ignored.

Posted by: TomGrey at 06/24/05 11:14 | link | comments

Happy Flappy Bird

It has come to my attention that I'm no longer just a reptile, but have evolved into a Flappy Bird on the TTLB Ecosystem.

Thank you, linkers. I'll try to visit your sites, too. Most commenters will get a reciprocal visit/ comment; and most linkers, too! Just let me know in comments here.