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

User: TomGrey
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.

  • Contact me
  • My profile
  • Linkme

And the blogroll

Counter

visited *loading* times

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear
Home » August 2005
Monday, 29 August 2005
Ever more on Press Bias, Kerry's Lie, and backlash

Jay Rosen writes more: "I have never seen--not even once--any hit of a resolution of any factual dispute involving the Swift Vets."  [I think you mean hint of resolution?]
 
Anyway, I'm waiting for Kerry to sign ... the Form that must not be named!  Oh he did?  But not yet, not really -- neither Jay nor Steve nor Dave can do a FOIA and get a copy of Kerry's, but they CAN get one of Bush?  (Including some missing time...)
 
The resolution waits for documentation against the critics, including some explanation (or apology?) for the deceitful 1986 Senate Testimony about Christmas in Cambodia. 
 
It seems Bush-haters don't understand why Kerry-haters (PressBias-haters?) are upset at official, on-record mis-representations (lies?) of service in order to gain Moral Superiority for their views.
 
One thing I really appreciate, Jay, is how Cap'n Wrath's rant echoed so many of your own prior complaints/ questions about the press.  (Though he then complained about you.) (It IS hard to keep disagreeing; glad you had a nice sabbatical)
 
Your post about the Persistence of Memory, newly searchable, comes to mind.
 
David Crisp asks about what if bias-bashers could be causing a backlash?  Backlash should mean, in effect, more Dems (those who the bias-bashers bash) getting elected, and more market share to the bias-bashed media. 
 
David instead talks about pro-life coverage at the paper.  I think coverage is a reasonable measure, but elections are more important. (Coverage is more clearly under control of the media.)
 
I asked, earlier, what if a biased pro-Dem media is actually to the Reps favor?  That should mean more Reps getting elected, and only a very slow market share decrease of the biased media. (Don't want to lose this secret "underdog" advantage too quick.)
 
A youth variation: what happens when it becomes "cool" in college to dismiss the biased PC views of the professors (& media) "establishment"?

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/29/05 22:40 | link | comments
media, hearts and minds

Clinton Lied, hundreds of thousands died

David Corn, a pretty strong Leftist Bush-basher, has some harsh words for Clinton on Rwanda.  His usual commenters spend most of their time doing more Bush-bashing, but with no refutation of:

Bush's misadventure in Iraq..,has rightly prompted widespread outrage here and abroad, while Clinton's indifference (and that of other Western leaders), which in a way allowed Hutu extremists to kill so easily hundreds of thousands of Tutsis in one of the most time-efficient massacre of the 20th Century, prompted hardly a burp of indignation.
 
Disregard can be far more deadly than folly.
I added:
The USA has signed up for, in the case of genocide, DOING SOMETHING.
 
Does the signature of whoever signs in the name of the USA mean something or not? 
 
If genocide, THEN action.
If not genocide, then non-action is OK.  This is the current logic in Sudan, a slo-mo genocide.  (Bush should ask for a declaration of war.)
 
um, I guess I'm one of those neo-cons perhaps not welcome here.  I believe world peace is a good goal, and even achievable in my lifetime -- in a World Without Dictators.
 
 
Of course, all the criticism of Bush for being imperfect sort of justifies Clinton NOT doing anything -- and for many, that is the purpose of the criticism.  To make sure "good" America does nothing, even if that allows evil to triumph.
 

Most prolly think it was good for the US to leave Vietnam.  I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of non-combatant civilians would have had to be murdered before an anti-war protester thinks post-war genocide was worse than 15 more years of fighting?  (1974 - 1989)

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/29/05 21:21 | link | comments

Sunday, 28 August 2005
Ayn Rand Right and Wrong

Ayn Rand is a true Capitalist Hero.  In an age when most intellectuals were on a collectivist bandwagon she held up the individual.  And she supported the morality of capitalism.  From a review of her movie The Fountainhead:

" The high point of the film is Roark's courtroom speech, « THE Soul of an Individualist » in which he states that all great creators are individuals standing alone against the prevailing thought of their times and that each creative individual's idea is, in fact, his property "

I recall her as teaching on the morality, The Virtue of Selfishness, and the hypocrisy if not immorality of altruism. 

The morality of self-interest is important, but it is NOT what makes capitalism moral. 

Agreements are what make capitalism moral. Freely entered into, voluntary agreements by acting moral agents.  A peace economy is one where people "volunteer", where they make agreements, and fulfill their side of the bargain.  Contracts are enforced in a "peaceful" society.  (Bargains with the devil are enforceable...)

Rand cheated on her husband. Plus she had no children.  I plan on, and have promised, to NOT cheat on my wife.  (Her beauty and kindness and intelligence make it easy.)  Plus I do have children.

My friend Tim Evans of the Centre for a New Europe gave me a bottle of Ayn Rand champagne.  I met Tim in London, before working with him in Slovakia -- on his team of Free Marketeers.  With Rand as, to some extent, inspiration.  I met my wife Eva when I got here ... and I'm still here in Slovakia. 

So, at the birth of our fourth child, I popped open the bottle and shared it with my father in law Teo, his wife Maria, and their oldest daughter Anna (my Eva is #2; #3 Magda has her own 3 kids; #4 Jana is in the UK!)

Welcome to the world, Patrick William, my son -- may it be more peaceful and more prosperous, than the one your father was born into.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/28/05 01:25 | link | comments
economics, hearts and minds, morality

Saturday, 27 August 2005
War to be proud of

Why can’t Bush talk as well, or get a speech writer to just copy Hitchens?
It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.
 
The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.
 
Hitch also reminds us how short the “end of history” was. And after Robertson’s silly outburst, I’m reminded that Rushdie is still under an assasination order by Iran.
 
He even reformulates, perhaps better, socialist nationalism into nationalist socialism — I’ve called out China as evolving into national Communist fascism.  (Via Anchoress)

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/27/05 22:00 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Friday, 26 August 2005
Support Michael Yon

Michael Yon is doing FANTASTIC reporting from Mosul.  Here is Gates of Fire.

Hugh Hewitt, among many recommends it.  Suggests you support Michael through his PayPal.

I also suggest you ask your newspaper to subscribe and carry Michael Yon's reporting.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/26/05 16:43 | link | comments
iraq, wot

Patrick William Grey born

Our fourth child, third son, was just born.  Congratulations to the Grey family, and especially great thanks to Mama Eva, who did fantastic work.

Pictures will go on the Picture blog later today.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/26/05 15:59 | link | comments (2)
greys

Let them disagree in Iraq. Vote no. New elections.

One of the two biggest mistakes of Bush & Bremer in Iraq was accepting Party List voting, instead of district based voting.  The Interim gov't should have used ration-cards PLUS additional registration; but the main issue is that Iraq should have been split into geographic estimated population districts.  See my Will Iraq become a bloodbath.  Bremer refused local budgetary authority -- and without cash, there won't be responsibility.

This was written over a year ago; still true.

The Sunnis should let the Shia-Kurd constitution go to a vote, should vote NO (like France and the Euro Constitution!), and go for new elections.  That, too, would be democracy.

I wish the Sunnis would demand 2 things: 1) districts for reps, so every rep has local constituency.  2) Oil trust fund for all Iraqi citizens/ voters, so oil money goes to the people.  With less need for poverty reduction programs.  I wish all secular/ modern oriented Iraqis would do this. (see Michael in support of contradictions.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/26/05 15:22 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Wednesday, 24 August 2005
Computers for Gaza - yes

Karim Elsahy of One Arab World wants Computers for Gaza.
 
Fine idea -- but what is REALLY needed is help for Palestinian young men in setting up small companies to add value/ create wealth.
 
Whether it is making shoes, furniture, rugs; or growing vegetables or raising chickens.
 
Without jobs, education is almost wasted. With jobs, the desire for education, to be more successful, is even stronger. 50 years of mostly wasted aid since WW II should show this. Look at Grameen bank and micro-loans.
 
Selling computers, and servicing them for businesses, is likely a better use of Win 98 quality 5 year old computers.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/24/05 23:20 | link | comments
wot, hearts and minds

One dark night, when all was bright

One dark night, when all was bright.
Two dead boys began to fight.
Back to back they faced each other,
Drew their swords and shot each other.

A deaf policeman heard the noise.
And came and killed those two dead boys.
If you don't believe my lie is true,
Ask the blind man.  He saw, too.

 

One Fine Day in the middle of the night is how the earlier poem goes.  Has more words, too.  But I learned it this way; and like it best.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/24/05 23:09 | link | comments

Iraq Constitution - like the EU - NO?

A good part of the draft Iraqi Constitution is available at Newsday. 
With more thought by more folks, it's looking better.
 
It would also be fine if the Sunnis said no; and said no again in October -- so that another Constitution writing could proceed, with more elected Sunni support.
 
Not sure Bush's Public Relations could handle that, though.  Yet, if "No" on the EU Constitution is OK, why not the first draft Iraqi? 
 
More time for Oil Trust Fund for all Iraqis -- and for District voting, rather than party lists.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/24/05 22:23 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Tuesday, 23 August 2005
Jay hasn't changed mind yet

Neo-neo-con is surprised about Jay Rosen’s thread with Austin Bay.
 
Can I suggest, Neo-neo, that Jay Rosen has NOT read your fine "A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change." Especially Vietnam results.
 
Jay supported the anti-War policy of "Out Now" in Vietnam.  He refuses to accept any responsibility for the results.
 
Via Marc Cooper I was referenced to (moonbat?) Leftist  Juan Cole on Iraq:
"If there is a civil war now that kills a million people, with ethnic cleansing and millions of displaced persons, it will be our fault, or at least the fault of the  75% of Americans who supported the war."
 
I'm surprised to see something I agree with so much -- but the same logic holds for Vietnam, where there WAS over 2 million folk murdered, and it was (partly) the fault of the USA when we stopped fighting evil commies. The policy the press supported.
 
I don't think Jay read your fine referenced Vietnam Redux article either.
 
Jay "knows" he's right, but the logic and the facts don't support his position.  He wants the press "to make a difference" -- and to be "neutral, impartial, just the facts" observers.  Usually not possible.
 
Jay and Steve L also avoid my very pointed "measuring" the effect of the press.  Minimum, Maximum, or neutral number of US soldiers lives.  Jay refuses to accept the existence of the Moral Hazard of a Free Press -- that more US soldiers will die than if the press was merely "Public Relations for Bush" (an idea John Cole complained about on an earlier thread).
 
Even more US soldiers die if the press is PR against Bush (almost= PR in favor of terrorists). That's closer to what many Reps on Jay's thread think the press is now doing.
 
I smilingly flatter myself that I'm helping to drive Leftist Mr. Rosen "crazy", suffering cognitive dissonance -- in need of really questioning why he believes what he believes.  Based on what facts and values.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/23/05 17:43 | link | comments
vietnam, democracy, media, moral hazard

The Exit Strategy

The (Bush?) Exit Strategy: support the Iraqi Constitution that the Iraqis who were elected in January agree upon (unless it is "too bad" -- undefined).  Support the October referendum to ratify, by vote, the Iraqi Constitution (no plan B).  Support the election of new Iraqis, as specified by their new constitution. 
Negotiate a timetable of withdrawal of US troops with the newly elected Iraqi leaders.
 
This plan MOSTLY depends on the Iraqis.  I think it's good, and the right plan, and the US leaving Iraq w/o discussing our plans and decisions with elected Iraqis is pretty irresponsible.  (But Leftists seem happy with wanting Reps to do irresponsible actions.)
 
Via Marc, and Juan Cole , who discusses Exit Strategy in his usual Leftist-defeatist way.
 
Marc, you're right about Juan Cole having good insights (this time; usually I don't think so).  Especially #7 -- district elections, NOT party list elections.  If the elections remain as party lists, expect Iraq to split.
(Will Iraq become a bloodbath?)
 
I was surprised no point 11 -- National Iraq Oil Trust fund, to divide oil profit to all citizens (voters?) equally.  And keep other taxes low.
 
Cole prefaced his points with this important statement, which I fully agree with:
"If there is a civil war now that kills a million people, with ethnic cleansing and millions of displaced persons, it will be our fault, or at least the fault of the  75% of Americans who supported the war."
 
Such a civil war will NOT happen while Bush is president.
 
Applying the same logic to Vietnam, we get: the post-war genocide that killed 2 million people was (partly) the fault of the USA, especially those who were advocating US "OUT NOW" -- like Marc Cooper.
 
 
Democracy is possible in an Arab, Islamic country -- but its supporters must be the "strong horse."

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/23/05 17:27 | link | comments

New Iraqi Constitution

Michael is worried about the new Iraqi Constitution
Anything offered is very likely to pass in October. The biggest key is the ability to change/ correct a mistake.
 
If Federalism is code-word for revenue sharing, Bush's biggest mistake was in NOT setting up an "interim" oil-money trust fund for all Iraqis (or only those who vote, after Jan?)
 
If keeping Iraq unified is a significant goal, Bush's biggest mistake is accepting party lists, rather than local districts. Party lists support extremist leaders, especially separatist ones.
 
"What Iraqis want" -- on most questions is unclear. The district/ party list details are important for the answers received.
 
But it IS, clearly, an IRAQI constitution. Not a US one the Iraqis have to accept. Heck, they won't "have" to accept this one; but almost certainly will.
 
What is the makeup of the court system?

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/23/05 17:22 | link | comments
iraq, democracy

Dean graduates

Dean is graduating from on-line college.

Congratulations!

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/23/05 17:20 | link | comments

Monday, 22 August 2005
Around the Web - soldiers are not children

Austin Bay writes about Jordan police: Al Qaeda's Bad Week in Arabia

Crossroads in Arabia notes why some are pessimistic about Arab democracy, with blood ties so much more important.

Powerline has a great letter on Cindy (Sheehan should be Casey the hero, not the moonbat mom).

" the reason the left is so insistent that those who are serving and dying are children is so they can "rationally" say they support the troops but not the war. If those who oppose the war are honest about it all, they would have to recognize that a good portion of us understand fairly well why we're here. Most of us think we should have finished Hussein off the first time, when there weren't so many crimes to convict him of. "

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/22/05 22:12 | link | comments
wot

Drifting Right or Left

Michael has a strange thread about drifting.
 
Was this a thread about drifting right/ left, or about Sharon & Israel?
 
To be drifting, one needs a point of reference.  Like a year 0: 1960, 1972, 1980, 2000 - but there is none specified.
 
Both left & right in the US have long supported a two-state Israel-Palestine solution, with the borders uncertain, status of Jerusalem unclear, and the expectation of no Palestinian "right of return" -- for those Arabs who fled in hopes their  Arab fascist neighbors would wipe out the Jews.
 
Support for Israel is based on a free press, and free elections.  Opposition to Palestinians is based on their lack of free press (or religion), lack of elections, lack of acceptance they wanted a war to kill Jews and lost.
 
The creation of Israel was not fully just; the wars by the Arabs ('48 & '56) were totally unjust.  What is justice after prior injustice?  Who owns the land?
 
What was the Left position at year 0?  What is it now? and the Right?
 
(If it's so silly, why bother?) (I'm an addict.)
 
Both Left & Right now want a two state solution.
 
I suspect Sharon is about to use his retreat out of Gaza, "land for peace", to justify holding onto the West Bank: "land from terror".
 
Future International Law will be based on a future agreement between some elected Palestinian, like Abbas (but I think the next one is more likely), and the Israeli PM (I don't think it will be Sharon, but it will be with his fenced in borders).

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/22/05 21:33 | link | comments
leftist, israel palestine

Darfur genocide - who will stop it when

Michael Totten in TCS says Darfur is today's Bosnia.
Michael didn't mention they are black-Muslims being murdered by African Arab Muslims; most in Darfur are Muslim.
 
In the comments Chris notes the black-Christian / Arab civil war in the South. 
 
There was a little mention about the Chinese interest in Sudan, and the oil.  China has 4000 security troops in Sudan, as well.  And the Arabs have pushed the N/S border south so that little of the oil is under the Christians.  Those Chinese soldiers/ workers mean China will veto anything at the UN.
 
Kofi Annan should still call it genocide in Darfur -- and if China vetoes it, it's occupying Tibet (illegally), too.
 
 
The US should be working with other democracies to set up an international (NATO based?) Human Rights Enforcement Group, of democratic nations (only), who will, in coalitions of the willing, protect people whose human rights are being violated by their governments.
 
Until some international org or agreement is set up, the US should only use words of condemnation -- including against Amnesty & Human Rights Watch, for not calling it genocide.
 
Michael, you failed to note that there are some 52 indictments of war crimes, from the UN / ICC, which Sudan has said they will handle.
 
Mark is correct here -- the UN should be verbally bashed, every opportunity, because it is, in  practice, an obstructionist / pro-dictator org.  Let Kofi complain about the Chinese veto -- but push the intervention issue until China DOES veto.
 
Increased US cash to neighbors seems one thing that could help; reduction of US cash to Egypt, the Northern Islamic neighbor of Sudan, could also help.  (Egypt's waste of US aid is another sad scandal.)
 
Air bombing is better than noting/ acceptance.  Arming & supporting the Southern Christian "rebels" might be excellent, too -- especially if they don't want the oil-land.
 
I've long supported cantonization / break up rather than civil war.  (Like the Slovak velvet divorce from the Czechs.)  The UN "freeze" on border changes was premature -- until the world is full of democracies.

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/22/05 21:31 | link | comments
democracy, genocide, darfur

Friday, 19 August 2005
Dueling accountabilities

It's good you remind us a bit about WHY we are in a pre-emptive war -- to stop Iraq BEFORE he gets nukes.
Looks like Bush succeeded to me.
 
Root cause of terrorism? Dictatorships, funded by oil profits.  Looks like Bush is successfully changing that in Iraq, FASTER than in Kosovo.
 
it should be someone's job to hold government accountable.
Accountability?  Have you ever looked at budget accounts?  Usually 3 columns:
Actual -- Plan/Budget -- Difference
Bush has been lousy on not specifying a clear plan/budget, of how much it will cost (lives, dollars).  But his actual numbers are great in terms of very few lives.  (If he gets democracy in Iraq at less than 2500 US soldiers, he's doing great.)

I never see, despite constantly asking for, any Bush-critic specify an alternate plan or budget to use in holding Bush "accountable".  This leads me to think they aren't really serious about true accountability.
Jay, as I noted early, I salute your desire to help the press change.   One of the changes that would be very good is to try to get simple alternative plans & budgets from gov't folks -- yet there also needs to be understanding by the public that when "actuals" are "different" than "plans", it is NOT a lie. 
 
If the press is going to treat any deviation from "plan" as if it's a lie, then it would be irresponsible of Bush to tell such a press any plan.
 
The main accountability for politicians is elections.  Bush got elected in 2000; re-elected in 2004. 
Message to top editors in NYT, WaPo, LAT, CNN -- or anywhere: if the actuals are a lot lower than the plan, time for editors to start leaving. 
Owners need to hold the press editors accountable; I can guarantee that there will be more editors changing in the next 3 years than US Presidents.  That's a fact.  (er, well, actually just a prediction...I'd bet LOTS of cash on it, though)
(See Marginal Revolution for more on betting markets as predictors of the future)

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/19/05 22:37 | link | comments (2)
iraq, unreal perfection

Jay Rosen lets Austin Bay guest blog, and he writes a great post covering The White House, the Press, and the War on Terror.
 
As an ex-Libertarian, new-Republican, I can affirm my own Rep rage against the press, while totally agreeing with Austin Bay that the White House needs to get better Public Relations, and better relations with the Press.  In prior threads there was a desire to have writers with passion.  Most Rep bloggers have lots of passion – against unfair Bush-hate by the press  (with few Leftists making any serious attempt to understand the Rep position.)
 
For most Unreal Perfectionists who complain about the Iraq war, I feel they deserve, from Teddy R:
"Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world."
 
War is hell; it means killing, dying (like Casey and many others), and even killing the innocent.
 
I wish the Bush-critics & supporters could focus more on the future, on rolling forward.
 
 
The future is never a "fact".  Previously GW made an argument of the form:
‘A is taking action because of a belief B is coming.  B is coming.  Those are the facts.’
 
While "A is taking action" is a fact, "B is coming" is merely a prediction.   In a longer analysis of such a story, I'd expect to see more evidence that B really is coming, including the strongest argument the B is NOT coming.
 
We DO have facts about the past. 
 
Austin Bay: “Building a New Iraq and defeating those who would destroy it is the grand strategy, but the Bush Administration didn’t make that case explicit.”
 
This has been and remains a real problem. Bush is failing in not explaining what Building a New Iraq really means. Not finding out what it means is how the press is failing.  It seems that the speeches Bush gives don’t tell enough, and the questions the press asks don’t clarify what is known and not known, enough.  As in any building, it’s not done yet; much of the construction hasn’t even started yet.  The Iraqi Constitution is the blueprint for the future institutions, to replace the current temporary gov’t.  We don’t know what it is yet, nor whether it will be approved in October.  (I hope they go for an Iraqi National Oil Trust so most oil money goes to Iraqi people directly; it’s not too late.)
 
 
After Austin discussed how Reps feel they’ve been victims, Jay writes: “I think he’s exactly right. Once upon a time, Republicans had a more suspicious ear for the victim’s mentality.”  This is SOOO rich, Jay complaining about Rep unhappiness in being victims, Jay blaming the victims!  -- ‘It’s the Reps fault the Press unfairly hates them’; or maybe Jay means ‘yes, the Reps do believe this stupid media-bias stuff, they used to be smarter than this.’  Admittedly, Jay more often does discuss how the press needs to change, which I celebrate him for.  Since Bush just DID get reelected, I suggest the press change first (fire more of them?)
 
Jay asks: “in what sense is a weakened, discredited, co-opted, or truth-starved press in the strategic interests of the United States?”
 
If you believe, as I do, that the current goal of the “national press” is to repeat their glory days of Vietnam, the goal of such a press is Public Relations against Bush, implicitly supporting the death squad terrorists in Iraq.  I think weakening press Bush-hate is good, and discrediting a Bush-hate filled press is good.  It is both good and will save American lives.
 
A co-opted, pro-war press is not quite what I want, since I accept more Americans dying in order to fight for a free press; though I want a press more balanced than the anti-Bush (=pro-terror) press I (seldom now) read.  Yet a pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-America press would minimize the casualties in the building of a New Iraq.
 
The press is not starved for “truth” by Bush. What the press is looking for and feel starved for is gotcha’ quotes.  Jay, please consider Bush since 9/11, and describe some “truth” that Bush refused to feed the press.  I might not understand what you mean.
 
Perhaps it’s the difference between being wrong and lying.  
 
Consider the Downing Street Memo.  Their use by the Left is to show that Bush was preparing plans to go after Iraq even before 9/11 (looks true).  The Right uses them to show that Bush really believed Saddam had WMDs (Bush was wrong).  What is the “truth” that Jay thinks the press is starved for?  It seems to me the DSM serves both the Left and the Right.  However, insofar as Bush’s belief in Saddam having WMDs conflicts with the primary Leftist narrative that “Bush lied” – the press has let this story become “uninteresting” and thus not NYT front page.  (Bush being merely wrong doesn’t fit with the Leftist need to claim the moral superior position that Bush lied.)
 
Similarly I read a lot of junk about Bush incompetence in Iraq – but never see a standard by which to compare.  Kosovo?  Rwanda?  Or Cambodia & Vietnam?  The UN child-rapists in the Congo?  It is not “truth” that is missing, but honesty about “incompetence” as a judgment, and a standard of comparison.  The implicit standard is Unreal Perfection, so I judge most press critics by Austin’s great Teddy Roosevelt quote:
 
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.”
I’m fully aware that, as a critic of the critics, I’m with those who do not count.  (waiting for Pajama Media …)

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/19/05 21:51 | link | comments

Thursday, 18 August 2005
PR anti-Bush press helps to kill US troops

Continuing from yesterday’s rant about Jay’s PressThink.
Steve Lovelady :
Tom "It's Not Too Late to Invade Vietnam" Grey:
Could you take me through the logic of the statement that a "PR pro-war" press would result in LESS American casualties in Iraq ??
I honestly don't see how you get from A to Z. Seems to me it would just as likely lead to more American casualties -- a lot more, in fact.
Hitler probably thought a muzzled, PR pro-war German press would lead to less Nazi casualties too.
Didn't work out that way, though.
Never has, in fact
 A very nice use of Hitler -- he effectively used PR for Hitler Germany ... but he LOST. 
 
Minimize/ Maximize issues are dependent on agreement of what the desired outcome is. 
 
Does the Steve Lovelady "narrative" assume or desire a loss, and thereby want to minimize the US soldiers lives lost (wasted), by withdrawing early?  This IS the right strategy, I'd say, for all on the side of Hitler... 
 
I'm assuming the US will help Iraqis WIN, and have a democracy.  Of course it's less expensive in lives to stop fighting than to LOSE.  (Perhaps the S. Vietnamese, Cambodians, Tutsis, and Darfur Sudanese don't fully agree.) 
 
The fact is, we don't know if the US/ Iraq democrats will win, or lose; nor if the terrorists will win.
 
I think you're being simultaneously condescending and yet unbelievably dense when you say, about pro-war PR: "I honestly don't see how you get from A to Z. Seems to me it would just as likely lead to more American casualties -- a lot more, in fact."
 
I thank you for at least acknowledging pro-war or anti-war "PR" can have an effect on the number of casualties, perhaps a big effect.  (In fact I do NOT believe you fail to see my logic, I think you just disagree, in the most lazy way you can think of.  It IS a long thread already)
 
So let's talk about 3 more real examples: WW II - Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq.
 
I claim dropping the bombs ended the war sooner, and saved US lives; and even Japanese lives.  It was dropped in a very pro-war PR campaign.  How much publicity for the B-29 bombers crashing the day before?  How much for details about D-Day prep with some 879 soldiers drowning in training?  How many "Private Ryan"-type German soldiers executed by advancing allied forces? How many fotos of allied soldiers, disgusted by SS guards at death camps, just murdering the guards?  Not much; not much criticism of the war.  The current news, of the time, was prolly around 90-95% on the pro-war PR side.
 
More anti-war PR press might have caused a delay in Hiroshima, increasing by some 2000/ week the US casualties.
 
Is this in agreement with your narrative?
 
Vietnam -- of course it's too late to invade; is it too late to LEARN?  Oh wait, facts & reality, like the KILLING FIELDS, haven't bitten the anti-war protesters (like you and Jay, who wonders why reality doesn't bite anymore).  Anti-war support FOR commie victory has been a disgrace for 30 years.  But I have to admit, if you want the commie victory at the fewest US soldier lives lost, the way is to oppose Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin resolution, oppose any action to escalate, and support surrender, er, "peace with honor" as soon as possible for the "senseless" war.
 
ONLY if you accept genocide as better than fighting against genocide was Vietnam senseless, or a mistake.  (How we fought there -- LOTS of mistakes.  Estimates of early “victory near” were especially terrible, over time; Pentagon Papers shows lots of mistakes.) 
 
Had the press remained pro-war PR, and accurately predict a coming genocide if the US leaves, so that the US was still engaged there when Nixon was booted, I think Ford and even Carter could have avoided letting the commies win (-- like with more funding for the S. Vietnamese defensive Army, and more air power to fight against N. Viet tanks.)  [I think the press did pretty good in booting Nixon, but terrible in getting the US to leave Vietnam – yet also that, without the anti-war/ anti-Nixon energy, Nixon wouldn’t have been booted.  It’s hard to separate the post-68 anti-war from anti-Nixon.]
 
My narrative has the press, after '68 & Tet & Nixon winning in 68, taking an anti-war PR position with few stories of the likely outcome if the US leaves.  And virtually no front page NYT stories at all a month after the US did leave, thereby omitting reports on the reality that should be biting the anti-war folk – until the great Killing Fields movie.
 
Is this in agreement with your narrative?
 
Now in Iraq.  When there are 90 front page NYT stories about Abu Ghraib & Gitmo, to 10 stories about Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and other victims of Islamofascist terrorists, I think the MSM is acting about 80% anti-war/ pro-terrorist.
 
This results in more potential terrorists seeing all this anti-war, anti-Bush energy, so there is a belief they really can “win,” in any case it is certainly possible to strike a blow against the Great Satan of the USA.  When the potential terrorists are told how bad the US is, the “guiding” Imam can merely read aloud from the NYT quoting, perhaps like the National Enquirer with only one source, somebody saying how terrible Bush is – and then say, “see, even the people in America know how terrible it is.”
 
My narrative has such anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America publicity increasing the number of terrorists actually joining.
Does your narrative really have the anti-Bush news decreasing the number of new recruits?  Or no effect? Or perhaps you lack the courage or intellectual integrity to say the effect on terrorists of your narrative?
 
Too much PR anti-war, anti-Bush is, inversely, pro-terrorist side, so there are more terrorist recruits.  If more potential terrorists actually join the terrorists and become active, this increases the number of US casualties, as well as Iraqis.
 
(And you expect me to believe you honestly didn’t know this before this rant?.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 08/18/05 17:06 | link | comments
democracy, moral hazard, free press