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!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

PC thought police against neo-cons

Neo writes, beautifully as usual, about Bookworm, and the unwillingness to "come out of the closet" of being a neo-con.  To Speak or Not to Speak. And various strategies about it. 

I like the idea of "facts" -- but the important facts are about the future.  And nobody knows.

There are some important historical facts: no-to-war, but yes-to-genocide in Rwanda in 1994.  No to war, but yes to genocide in Darfur, today; "no-genocide" by the UN.

fantasy: "I hate Bush". 
   "what about Kofi Annan?"
"He's OK"
   "what about Darfur?"
"What do you mean?"
   "Is Darfur a genocide or not?"
"Of course it is, Kerry said so, too."
    "But the UN says it is not -- are they more stupid than Bush?"...

I just had a thought that the Dems were not keen on Kerry, but the same unwillingness to openly discuss pros & cons of different positions, meant there was little real opposition to Kerry, despite the eight other dwarves and the (did anybody watch them?) Dem primary debates.

The Dem PC-thought police conformity requirement is losing for them the idea of a loyal opposition.

For liberal friends, when they say "I hate Bush,"  perhaps affirming a shared belief.  "I love democracy and freedom."  Or, "I love economic prosperity."

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/31/05 01:17 | link | comments (3)
democracy, hearts and minds

The Church, Capitalism, Max Employment

Michael Novak writes about the Catholic Church and Capitalism:

"Capitalism, it's usually assumed, flowered around the same time as the Enlightenment -- the 18th century -- and, like the Enlightenment, entailed a diminution of organized religion. In fact, the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was the main locus for the first flowerings of capitalism. Max Weber (1864-1920) located the origin of capitalism in modern Protestant cities, but today's historians find capitalism much earlier than that in rural areas, where monasteries, especially those of the Cistercians, began to rationalize economic life. "

He recalls the important advances of over a thousand years ago: rule of law, free associations of people so that transgenerational institutions could maintain knowledge, the priestly celibacy so that property / family divisions would not interfere with devotion to God -- though a quick history of the Knights Templar and the Cistercians (now Trappists) shows that successful econmic activity soon brings some corruption with it.

This convinces me that I should, indeed, spend more time with my Maximum Employment Company ideas; related to voluntary Full Employment ideas and a little bit in opposition to required full employment plans of the government.

We are now watching the 5 part Cursed Kings remake.  It's pretty good -- the greed/ property/ sex/ conniving/ lying/ backstabbing, arrogance; all the bad of the upper class are shown, as well as a lot of the romance.  I like it.  Torture is not reliable for confessions.   (But none of the characters are good enough to be called "heros".)

Wishing all a Holy Holiday week.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/28/05 11:26 | link | comments (1)
economics, christianity, maximum employment

Iraq will not remain united

David Corn links to some reasonable Bush-hate "Iraq is going down the tubes" kind of folk; Why are we in Iraq? 

It might be a huge problem, if the only goal is a secular, unified Iraq -- a goal I don't think was explicit, though it's one that I was certainly hoping for.

Cowardly David asks good, tough, questions -- but fails to give his own answers.
In May, 2004, I wrote about the coming bloodbath in Iraq.  Based on having proportional representation and "lists", instead of local districts (the kind the US stupidly gerrymanders).

If Bush has claimed the goal is to establish a secular, unified Iraq -- I haven't seen this in any speech. Though I haven't read them all.  What I recall is "democracy" and "Iraqis will choose."

Meaning, if a majority want to vote on religious lines, the religious win.  If a majority of Shia want to leave "Iraq", or have as much autonomy as the Kurds, that's what they get.

When did Kerry, or the Dems, or David Corn, start claiming we "should" be in Iraq to establish a unified, secular state?  The problem with the Dems and their anti-war we "shouldn't" be there, is they have little leverage in supporting better policies over weaker policies for Bush.  (Local districts, local municipal elections, local budgetary authority, National Oil Trust for all Iraqis [/all voters?] all better than the "lists" and centralization under Bremer.)

Bush-hate noise drowns out reasonable critique.  And Corn has half a reasonable critique -- analysis of possible bad stuff; but missing the other half, policies with better results.

Better policies are almost always missing for Bush-haters.

---

If there are 3 autonomous regions, South, Central, and North Iraq, with only very limited Federal/ Central power, that could a good solution for Iraq.  Especially if oil revenue is split 50/50 between the local region (N & S, mostly) and the Feds, with the Feds giving out an equal Oil Trust Fund dividend to all. 

If the Shia decide to secede, the Kurds will be happy to; then the US is there to enforce the "velvet" part of the Iraq disolution.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/24/05 10:41 | link | comments (1)
iraq, democracy

How to keep America safe? Democracy

David Corn has more on diagreement with Roger L. Simon, and also a rant about how the GOP paints the Dems as not serious on national defense, and about Bush's wiretapping.

It's certainly not clear if Bush was violating the law -- the Letter/ states that Bush got legal advice saying the bugging was legal.  Is this a "war"?  I think so.   If not, how many have to be killed before it is?

David, thanks for a clear answer to Roger "I happen to think that accusing someone of presenting a shallow argument, ducking the real issues, making a grand miscalculation, and sacrificing American lives to create a theocratic government allied with the Holocaust deniers of Iran is hardly a wimpy reply." 
Of course, Iraq does not yet have such a theocratic gov't, so your critique is premature, if not a future lie.

The real issue is: how to keep America safe?  Stop Terrorism.  What is the root cause of terrorism? Arab & Islamic non-democracy ... or something else.

If you think something else is the root cause, perhaps poverty? (TAX the rich!), you should be repeating it more clearly.  I don't see you really looking at the issues.

On torture & interrogation: your problem is that Bush supporters oppose torture, but support tough interrogation.  Some call it abuse, or humiliation, or degradation -- and condemn it as much as torture.  The guys with their arms cut off by Saddam -- that's torture.  Naked on a leash, illegal abuse (and England deserves jail), but not torture.  The issue is the difference -- and it's you who avoid the issue.  Well, the Left; you Lefties do seem so monotonic.

On the war; if you oppose the war that means you support Saddam as continued ruler.  Or else you have some delusional 'third way' of booting him?  You prolly opposed the Vietnam war, too -- but also deny any responsibility for the genocide that occurred after, and because of following, your "out now" policy idea.  (I wanted us out then, too -- if we weren't going to win.  I'm ashamed of that position now; you should be, too.)

Bush may be making mistakes, but he's acting and doing lots of good things.  We got into Vietnam in 1956 by denying them an election that would have given them an elected Ho Chi Minh commie anti-Jap general.

If a majority of Sheat want to ally with Iran, that's part of what democracy allows.  Pretty stupid, but their choice -- yet I don't really believe a majority of Iraqis are that dumb.  Like so many control freak Leftists, not knowing what others will really do seems to be freaking you out.

It's not a totally implausible fear -- but the fear of Iran getting nukes and letting terrorists get nukes is a much bigger fear, to me.  And the real reason I support Bush's anti-Saddam war.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/23/05 01:33 | link | comments (6)
iraq, democracy

Holocaust Denial

The comments to Neo's post are pretty good, too.  Y:

" Last time I checked Jews were part of the human race. [response]

They would be, but in the last 2 thousand years or so, they've been making pretty sure that their blood wasn't diluted and spread around so as to "hybridize" the Jews out of existence.

This focus on blood, not an American theme, is what keeps anti-Semitism alive and kicking. There would be no anti-Semitism if you couldn't tell a Jew from a African, an American, or a European.

But you can, and it is pretty easy too and they want it to stay just the way it is. For whatever reasons.

Probably a psychological one. "

The anti-hybridization of Jews is almost certainly a signficant issue:
"They would be, but in the last 2 thousand years or so, they've been making pretty sure that their blood wasn't diluted and spread around so as to "hybridize" the Jews out of existence.

This focus on blood, not an American theme, is what keeps anti-Semitism alive and kicking."

In fact, Jews are racists.  (Def: not wanting your daughter to "marry one of <i>them</i>")

The Fiddler on the Roof renounces his own daughter when she would rather marry for love than for (Jewish-only) blood.

It is very strange that only the Y chromosome is passed down from father to son to granson; all others, like a woman's X, are a mix.  (A woman has XX; x1 from mother, x2 from father.  Each egg has one x3, which is a combination of x1 & x2, not a copy of either).

Genetic tracking shows high purity among Jews, indicating there WAS a common "Abraham" ancestor of "all" Jews.  And, since Jewishness is supposed to be passed by the women, the purity (95%?) indicates a huge amount of faithfulness.

Smart. Hardworking. Faithful. No wonder the Jews are usually economically successful; like foreign Chinese wherever.

Racist: unwilling to accept their daughters not marrying (the inferior) non-Jews.  This small true "injustice/ intolerance" by the Jews, is rationalized to justify the hysterical Jew-hatred by the racist anti-Semites.

The "crime" of not accepting their children marrying a non-Jew doesn't justify any action at all.  But it does mean the Jews are not quite completely innocent--they were racist first, without being willing to fight to the death for their own country.

I condemn the Hitler like anti-Semitism, and do NOT condemn the Jewish mild racism.  But I do try to name it honestly, and occassionally point it out.

I actually think "Jews" are, on average, intellectually superior; and think most people think this.  But it's not PC to talk about it.

I hope I haven't offended anybody dishonestly.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/22/05 01:26 | link | comments (1)

Thoughts on Victory Conditions

TigerHawk has an important post about Defining Victory Conditions in the War on Terror, including the big battle over Iraq, and the fact that it is a strategic trap.  AFTER reading it, my comments might make some sense.

I think that it fails to mention the strongest point of AQ ideology: anti-West, meaning against the "worst" of the West.
Pornography, divorce, promiscuity, immodesty (especially of women); gross economic inequality; corruption.

As long as the West suffers from these problems, and Sex Lib for women isn't going away from the West, AQ and/or Communism and/or secular Deep Green Environmentalism will keep offering an "alternative."  And will remain attractive, if militarily impotent.  In this respect, Communism the idea has NOT been thoroughly discredited, only its name.

With respect to "democracy" discrediting AQ, the biggest weakness is corruption.  And so far, all democracies suffer from it -- even pseudo-democracies like the EU and UN. 

It's too bad the Iraqi "oil wealth" wasn't temporarily put into a Trust Fund for all Iraqis, allowing them to vote later to keep a Trust or not, so as to directly give the people much of the cash, rather than have it for politicians to fight over and reward their supporters with.

I really like its "clown regime" characterization.  My own definition of victory is easy:
A World Without Dictators.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/21/05 09:37 | link | comments (2)
iraq, democracy

Time has great photos for 2005

Time shows many pictures, most fantastic quality.

I didn't see any about the Iraq elections: not January; not October, not December.  3 times in a year; but Time's photographers missed this history.  Still, the great stuff they got is wonderful.

I love the space shots -- but they don't move me.   The War On Terror, for democracy, is the big story this year.  For me.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/21/05 00:21 | link | comments (1)
wot

Some on Wiretapping, and Gov't size

David Corn writes about the wiretapping, so does The Anchoress.

David, kinda sloppy reporting.  The Anchoress goes back to Jamie Gorelick in 1994 and Clinton fighting for, and getting, the power to do this crap.

Yeah, it's crap -- like most gov't power.  But you Lefties always want Big Gov't, and then are so surprised that power-hungry realists, rather than good-hearted altruistic incompetents, GET that power.
Which is why we need tax cuts; constantly.  And more choice in school, like with vouchers, so as to avoid any thought-policing conformity.

Yes, I'm pro-war against dictators, but also know that "war is the health of the state." 

You should NOT ask for gov't to have any power you wouldn't want your political enemies to have, sometimes.  When Dems are really asking for smaller gov't, they'll have learned that lesson the hard way.  (And maybe get tiny Libertarian party support.)

 

Earlier, David wrote more of his usual Bush-hate, "new, but not improved spin".

I love this line, David: "Rhetoric only goes so far in trumping reality".
Anti-war protest in Vietnam; success -- US leaves; US loses, commies win.
Result (in reality): commie supported genocide.

Anti-war protest in Iraq; so far, failure -- Bush is re-elected, US stays, US wins, terrorists lose.
Result (in reality, so far): US supported democracy.

Unfortunately, "democracy" doesn't mean human rights, nor successful market economies.  It's only voting for politicians.  A good step.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/20/05 23:44 | link | comments (2)
democracy, leftist

Some on Bush's speech

Gateway Pundit has a great post on Bush's speech, with a timeline of major events:

 Well, it has been just over 1,000 days since the US and a coalition of nations began the War on Iraq. What exactly has been accomplished in those 1,000 days of war in Iraq:

March 20, 2003, America launched its first series of air strikes on Baghdad. By April 9, 2003 marines help topple a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

April 10 2003- After the unexpectedly quick defeat of Saddam Hussein's forces, Paul Wolfowitz announces the US intentions, "We want to see a situation where power and responsibility is transferred as quickly as possible to the Iraqis themselves, with as much international assistance as possible ... We have no desire to occupy Iraq..."

December 14, 2003- Saddam Hussein captured in spider hole in Tikrit.

June 28, 2004- At 10:26 AM, the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority formally transferred sovereignty of Iraqi territory to the Iraqi interim government, two days ahead of schedule.

January 30, 2005- An estimated eight million people vote in elections for a Transitional National Assembly. The Shia United Iraqi Alliance wins a majority of assembly seats. Kurdish parties come second.

April, 2005- Parliament selects a Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani as president. Ibrahim Jaafari, a Shia, is named as prime minister.

August 2005 - Draft constitution is endorsed by Shia and Kurdish negotiators, but not by Sunni representatives.

October 2005- Trial of Saddam Hussein on charges of crimes against humanity opens in Baghdad.

October ,2005- Voters in a referendum approve a new constitution which aims to create an Islamic federal democracy.

December 15, 2005- Iraqis go to the polls to choose the first, full-term government and parliament since the US-led invasion.

A comment that  "America" is in Iraq to stay, like it or not, even if Americnas leave.

Right!  a bit like we're again talking to Vietnam; and even more in Cambodia.

We must succeed; but not because "there is no alternative".  Because the alternative is so terrible -- civil war and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, dying; plus huge scope for terrorists.

There was an alternative to war for Rwanda -- genocide.  Alternative to war in Darfur, now -- genocide.  Alternative to "more war" in Vietnam in 73 -- genocide.

War is bad; all too often, the alternative is worse.

But Nancy Pelosi wants a New Direction -- sounds like retreat and acceptance of civil war; prolly so she can blame Bush for the mess. (Via LGF)

The Media's Incurable Myopia also has more:

The coverage of the Iraqi election by the press has been extensive and generally positive, but as sure as the sun continues to rise in the east, by next week we will be back to a steady diet of chaos and carnage in the newspapers and on TV.

There has been some good press on the Iraq elections -- much more than on the Afghanistan elections (the quagmire that defeated the Soviets).  Will the diet of chaos and carnage be repeated -- I hope not, but fear so.  Yet I think Bush will be starting to go after the press more.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/19/05 10:39 | link | comments (1)
iraq, democracy

Left has critiques -- but no realistic alternative

 Poor David Corn, writing about Spielberg's Munich while Iraqis are voting for representatives according to a Constitution they voted for; written by Iraqis that were voted for in January.  And what David writes, as usual, is a critique with an "unreal perfection" as the unspoken alternative.

First David admits that Spielberg offers no alternative, then he claims "it's just not that simple." Most pro-human rights / anti-terrorist folk agree it's not that simple. Most conservatives understand that JUSTICE, the reaction to an INjustice, is a grey area. Like so many Leftists, David and Spielberg refuse to articulate the "alternative": surrender. Let the terrorists win, dominate, murder, rape, put women in veils and beat, if not kill, any who get uppity.

Oh no, the Lefties don't want THAT -- but that's what they've got following the Kerry/ UN/ global test on genocide in Darfur. That's what they voted for when they voted for Clinton in 1996, after his "no-genocide" in Rwanda lie. That's what the Dem Party accepted when they stopped funding S. Vietnam -- genocide in SE Asia. Oh no, the Lefties don't want any of the bad RESULTS of following their policies ... life isn't so simple ... it's not our fault (it's Nixon, er, Bush, er, the Spanish Inquisition!). OK, besides surrender, there's running away -- the Iranian President is offering Europe back to the Israeli Jews. (Maybe we could confuse them by running away some more? Oh shut up and change...)

"Such gray could well upset those who depict the war on terror in white-hats/black hats style. " The Bush-haters who are so certain Guantanomo is US = black hats could use a bit more gray -- the alternative is more Americans dying if we fight. If we don't fight, it's surrender. Fighting and remaining good -- that really IS a challenge. One the Left keeps failing to meet. What's the alternative?

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/17/05 01:52 | link | comments (3)
unreal perfection

99% Leftist media bias

Today I did some quick google:
 Results 1 - 10 of about 585,000 for "Iraq elections".

 Results 1 - 10 of about 6,050,000 for "Abu Ghraib"

So let's say 6 million to 600 000; 10 times more for Abu Ghraib.

But I think that the Iraqi elections are 10 times more important -- were they both at 600 000, I'd claim Leftist bias because the Iraq elections are a real world-history changing event.  The Iraq elections are attacking, and changing, the root cause of Islamofascism -- corrupt, power-hungry Arab dictators.

This might be the first time in history that a people have directly elected a National Assembly to write a Constitution; and then directly vote to ratify that Constitution through a referendum; then use this newly written Constitution as the Law in holding a new election for representatives.  Democratically elected reps with power from a democratically ratified Constitution; written by democratically elected authors.

Unbelievable.

And very poorly covered -- with the big story more about the "lack of violence" than about what it means to so many Iraqis.

So many dreams of good things are sure to be disappointed in the near-future reality. The lack of more analysis about almost inevitable disappointment and complaints about the system/ leader is also a bit sad.  At least the Iraqi press has the freedom to publish such articles if they see fit ("= see a market?")

Today the BBC has a few articles about it.  They don't point out either the historical rarity, nor the likely future disappointment.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/16/05 23:48 | link | comments (1)
iraq, democracy

Iraq elections! No need for live media coverage

Here's some choice quotes (via Media Lies to Iraq the Model, where Omar also has pictures):

---

The defense minister who isn’t running for office in this election refused to reveal to whom he gave his vote because “this particular ministry is for all Iraqis and politics must not affect the attitude or performance of the military institute”.

---

The first voter was a disabled man, Jasim Hameed (65) he attended at 6:30 am and insisted on being the first one to vote.
When he put the paper in the box said "I'm here at this early hour to challenge the terrorists who want to kill the democratic process in Iraq and I want to encourage the healthy people to vote”.

---

Shandookh Alwan Ibrahim, a disabled man on wheelchair and a father of three young men who were executed by Saddam said: “Our future is in our hands, today is the celebration day for the poor and I'm one of them and we need someone in charge who can shoulder the responsibility”

---

Al-Haj Abo Mohammed al-Furaiji took all his family members that were eligible to vote and soon they all walked out from the polling center smiling and saying “we chose what we wanted”.

It's so sad there is little coverage of this -- the good news, the victory for freedom, for democracy.  Of course, it should be a victory for Bush, too -- and the biased Lefty media hates that.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/16/05 01:33 | link | comments (2)
iraq, democracy

The media plan for US - Bush defeat

Thomas Sowell notes : " The media seem to have come up with a formula that would make any war in history unwinnable and unbearable: They simply emphasize the enemy's victories and our losses.
 
 Losses suffered by the enemy are not news, no matter how large, how persistent, or how clearly they indicate the enemy's declining strength."

What was noted before was the fact that Americans are not hysterical about casualties -- they're hysterical about casualties when the war is lost; or at least, not won.  Thomas S. fails to take the next step, that  there is a Moral Hazard in a Free Press -- I'll have to rewrite that post and make it a legend...

There is also the seeming fact that Dems think even 1 soldier dying is "too many" -- because they are unwilling to give any greater number as "acceptable."

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/15/05 00:03 | link | comments (2)
media, hearts and minds, moral hazard

Chile successful because NOT socialist

Marc Cooper notes another election, in Chile.  The socialist is likely to win the run--off:

"While other emerging populist governments in Latin America – from Venezuela to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil—have strongly distanced themselves from the Washington Consensus of free-market nostrums..."

A good reporter would choose some macro-economic criteria, like unemployment, real GNP growth, GNP per capita, and inflation, then compare Chile with these neighbors.  Now and 5 and 15 years ago.  I'm pretty sure Chile looks much better now, but even looked better 15 years ago.

Funny how a Leftist is so concerned about a CULTURAL black hole (no abortion, little divorce, Catholics against condoms), but are unwilling to actually compare the objective economic performances.  What is the AIDs rate?

There will be poor folk everywhere (-- I've read that Brasil's are among the poorest.)

The main solution should be to encourage more job creation -- but increasing the public/  gov't sector, and taxes (on job creators) to pay for it, seems unlikely to do so in the medium/ long term.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/12/05 19:30 | link | comments (2)
economics, democracy

Costs & benefits grey -- choices black & white

The Left likes to complain about "black and white when the world is really grey".  The same folk almost always are quick to bash Bush about any grey, non-white action or result that occurs.  Dishonest hipocrites.

Choices are often black or white -- Bush or Kerry ; invade Iraq or not ; fight to stop genocide in Rwanda or not; stay in Vietnam or get "out now" .

The "nots" in the above cases mean certain results: leaving Saddam, accepting Rwanda genocide, accepting SE Asian genocide (Vietnam ~700 000; Cambodia ~2 000 000 murdered by the victorious commies, the side the anti-war folk accepted).  Leaving Vietnam, rather than staying, prolly saved some 100-200 American lives per month (for 10 more years?). I think it would have been better to fight -- without a draft (which ended in 1972/73).

Not fighting in Rwanda prolly saved some 100-1000 American soldier lives, plus multiple billions of tax-dollars -- the cost of stopping genocide.  Invading Iraq has already cost some 2100 US soldier lives, and I expect another 1000 or so before the second Iraq election under their Constitution (with the first election coming up this week!).  If Bush keeps it under 2500, I give him an A; under 5000 and he gets a B.

The choices are often stark -- but have good and bad results.  The results are grey.

Just like every justice system (where injustice is often pretty clearly just black).

Good Vietnam timeline.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/10/05 18:17 | link | comments (8)
unreal perfection, leftist, justice

On hold: Thank you, Pajamas Media

From email:

Hi Tom:

Just a note to let you know that we received your info and that we added your site to our list of bloggers and to our blogroll.  Thanks.

Juliette

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/08/05 23:58 | link | comments

War or Saddam was the choice

Don Surber gets 5 of 6.

On #6, I like Saddam on trial.  I'd prefer a LONG trial, with LOTS of evidence -- like for EACH of the mass graves.  And more of his torture videos should be shown, too.

Killing him quickly won't help as much, as more and more and more and sickeningly, clearly, every more evidence of what a monster Saddam was; is. 

And all those against the war need to be told -- this is the man they are in favor of.

War or Saddam -- that was the choice.  The anti-war folk choose Saddam.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/06/05 23:48 | link | comments (5)
iraq

Missing magic --fine action flick, weak Harry Potter movie

"Harry Potter" books are magic.  Because:
there's action and excitement,
there's magic and enchantment,
there's good vs. evil,
there's right vs. wrong, vs. the rules sometimes,
there's friendships and tests of friendships,
there's character development and growth, including hints about the future.
There are also the many sub-plot and side-story lines.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire has Action and Excitement and more Action and more Excitement.  A good amount of magic; a bit of good vs. evil, a good bit of friendship tests.

But the movie, totally unlike the great book 4, has too few hints about the future, and almost nothing on important sub-plots and side stories.  Yes, it HAD to be cut to be a single 2.5 hr movie -- but why not make it a double movie?  Where's the Extended Version?  -- LOTR proved it could be done, at a good profit.

Movies have to choose whether to be for those who DID read the book, or those who did NOT read the book.  Unfortunately, Mike Neville L. or whoever the silly director, chose for those who did NOT read the book.  Wrong.

I'll update this post later, I hope, but there were two hugely important sub-plots missing.

First, Rita Skeeter, and her poisonous pen with the half-truth articles that make Harry at first too cute, then later start attacking him.  Too small in the movie, too little, too early.

Second, the big Fudge denial of Voldemort's return at the end -- totally missing.  Yes, Dumbledore tells the students it was V, and says the Ministry doesn't want it told.  But the depths of Fudge's denial are missing. Fudge disagreeing with DD about continuing the tourney, after Crouch but before task 3, is a weak weak substitute.

Of course, these are two of most relevant issues relating Harry Potter to the war in Iraq -- the propaganda power of the press against Harry (or Bush), and the denial that Voldemort is back and a danger (or that Iraq was a danger). 

Both of these are important in #5 -- Order of the Phoenix.  But Film#4 stands alone.  Few links from the past, few hints about the future.  No elves nor Dursleys is OK; but so little Rita and Fudge makes me very disappointed.

The action was fine, but it's the action PLUS the development PLUS the future hints that create the magic.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/05/05 22:59 | link | comments (4)
harry potter

The press helps kill Americans in Iraq

Stephen at Vodkapundit notes he's on top of the media as part of the war.  But I wish he'd seriously consider the implications, write up the Moral Hazard of a Free Press (better than I've done.)

The media coverage possibilities cover a continuum from PR/ propaganda in favor of war, thru balanced pro-war/anti-war, thru PR against war.

This continuum correlates to Americans killed, even if the numbers aren't known.
My own guess is something like 600 - 1200 -- 2400.  Had the press been PR for war (and Bush), only 600 Americans would have been killed by now.  With a balanced press, only 1200.  With a press doing PR against war (against Bush, FOR the terrorists), 2400. 

Somebody believing the press IS balanced, and not so important, might say 2000 - 2200 - 2400.  Or any other numbers, reflecting an estimate of casualties based on media.

Media DOES matter, meaning Americans are dying because of "free speech", including PR against Bush (usually = against the war = for Saddam/ terrorists).

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/03/05 10:39 | link | comments (3)
moral hazard, free press

Old computer games

Vodkapundit writes about old computer games.

One thing the Atari 400 had was room for 4 joysticks -- so 4 friends could get wasted and play Dandy in a group shooter wiping out ever increasing masses of badguys.  MULE was an initial build base, hoard resources kind of game.

C64 had fine shooters, too (what was that chess thing where each capture was a mini-fight?)

For two players, or especially more, the PC based games aren't so good. 

But are you missing the "game" or your own youth?  Prolly you like the music of the 70s or 80s more, too?  (I know I do -- 60s much more than 90s!) Perhaps playing football/ basketball/ frisbee was more fun then, too?  It's called gettin' old.

Phones have simple shooter games; and little hand held game-boys/ dance-boys.  I don't quickly change the (rechargable) batteries for my two 8-9 year old sons on those silly, simple games.  But they would spend hours on them if I let them.

When Pong, then Space Invaders came out -- EVERYBODY who played, played them.  Now, with so many choices, like with cars not everybody having a model T, more players are playing something ELSE. 

End of shared cultural experience.  Same way cable/ DVDs/ are reducing the power of Big 3 networks, but also fragmenting culture.

Now we gotta go for the first weekend of Harry Potter 4 in the theaters -- it took a couple of weeks for the Slovak dubbing to be ready (but we'll see it in English.)  The HP - 1 EA game is pretty good.

Posted by: TomGrey at 12/03/05 10:32 | link | comments