Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Best columnist on the NYTimes oped page. It shows you how far Krugman and Dowd have fallen when their columns happen to stand next to one of Friedman’s. They ought to give Friedman a foreign policy job in a moderate administration (hoping we get one in 2008).

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

In other words, "because you disagree with me, you are not only wrong, but ignorant and foolish." Board Motto, but not particularly convincing.

Well, that clears it all up, then. Time for tea.

S_A_M

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Friedman was wonderful telling us about his on-the-ground experiences in Beruit and Israel. He's something less than wonderful telling us how things should change in the ME now. He seems to want to try all the things that have already failed. I think he wants to go to his speeches and parties and not get booed simply because he's an American, and so picks strategies that will make us lovable. Problem is, being lovable is not a rational goal right now.

Remember this?
 

There's some new information about this particular faculty member at Indystar.com: here.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

I finished the World is Flat at the end of October. From my perspective there wasn't that many new insights. He was just summing up what economic conservatives (economic neoliberals have known for years ). All it did was reinforce my views that:

1) We need to embrace Globalism not run from it. That means entering into all the free trade agreements we can get involved in. The book pointed out why it was moronic to be against CAFTA, NAFTA and the WTO.

2) Any politicians that talks about "fair trade", "the lowest common denominator when it comes to wages, the importance of farm subsidies, protecting domestic jobs or pretty much takes any position that is supported by the Unions is a danger to this country's future.

3) We need to create an environment in the US that fosters business and entrepeneursim. If we don't business will go somewhere else.

4) We need to focus on education, and not an educational system that is worried about self esteem but that is actually worried about education.

Did anyone else get a different message?


P.S. The Gods have decided that I should not read Collapse. It was in none of the local bookstores so I ordered it from Amazon. They screwed up the order and sent me the wrong book and I am still waiting for them to send me the right one.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

There are piles of copies of it in the bookstore next door. I'm not reading it.

The last thing I need is a bullshit glass half empty tome, scolding me for having an SUV.

Of course things collapse in time. There'll be a day, I'm sure, where humans will no longer live on this planet. People keep saying "Oh, we humans are ruining the world with our unnatural use of resources and chemicals and [insert affront to nature here]." It seems to me that everything on the planet is natural. Its all come about from a natural evolution of the human mind. So this “Collapse” is a natural end result of a natural process. Seems like a life cycle type of thing. Every species has an end date over a long enough span of time. So Diamond has found proof we’re following that natural course. So what? What’s that going to say to me? It’s just more defeatist depressing sky-is-falling shit.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

It really isn't a defeatist book. Or a sky is falling book. It is about learning from what people before us did which led to their eventual demise (and in some cases, their eventual success, which is related obviously to his earlier book, Guns, Germs and Steel). I don't know why trying to learn things from prior societies would be looked upon as a negative thing. It actually contains some really hopeful examples of ways that, for example, big oil conglomerates have done things to improve local environemnts AND their long-term bottom lines.

So you wouldn't want us to learn about Hitler because it is just a story of how bad people can be and there is nothing really to learn other than human nature?

Yes, I said it. Hitler. What does Sebby win?



(I'm pretty sure that the rule doesn't hold if you aren't actually comparing someone to Hitler, but if this loses me the argument, so be it.)

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Depends. Will it make me feel guilty about spending my tax cut money on gas for driving my SUV past the WalMart to the parking lot outside the boarded-up factory to get some cheap yard work done by the illegal immigrant "day-labor" workers?

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

It pretty much has nothing to do with any of that. It would have more to do with if you chopped down the last tree on your continent to use it as a Christmas tree or something.

You are feeling guilty all on your own though, aren't you? Poor Not Bob.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Wow. So many memes. So little time.

Actually, Diamond will merely convince you that empiricism is a rational source for guidance.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Oh dear. How do I say this politely......what loses you this argument, and so many others, is the persistence of misspellings and typographical errors in your posts. I for one cannot take seriously an argument that the author could not bother to present in a professional manner. Maybe it's just me that feels that way.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

I think you meant to use the html code for bold, which is simply "b" in the brackets, not "bold". You're welcome. Merry Generic-Winter-Holiday and Happy New Year.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Guilt is my middle name. I blame the cute-haired waitress.

But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
 

I tried to put something about Halliburton in there, too, but ran out of room.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

by Christopher Hitchens


It helps discredit free media in Iraq at a time when that profession is very new and very hazardous (and one of the unarguable moral gains of the original intervention). In a situation already dominated by rumor and conspiracy-mongering, and in a country rife with death squads, it exposes every honest Iraqi reporter to the charge that he or she is an agent of a foreign power. Who at the Pentagon could possibly have needed to have this explained to them?


It comes on the heels of a credible report about a threat, from President George W. Bush, to bomb the Qatari headquarters of Al Jazeera. The British government, from whose inner circle the relevant memo has been leaked, might have taken credit—in that Tony Blair appears to have dissuaded Bush from this course of criminal insanity—but instead has threatened to use the Official Secrets Act against the newspaper that published it, thus somewhat strengthening the supposition that the story is true. Since certain people and places associated with Al Jazeera have been hit in the past, it appears more plausible than ever in retrospect that some deliberate "targeting" may have been involved.


It follows the deaths, at the hands of American soldiers, of several Iraqi journalists in "friendly fire." I wrote about this for Slate in July and pointed out that a British general had warned American commanders that these tactics might be quite an easy way of losing the war.


It is not just a matter of lying to the Iraqis and to neighboring countries, bad as that would be. The feedback must also have been intended to deceive the American taxpayers whose money was used for the fraud in the first place.

. . .

It is, anyway, not so much a matter of fooling people as of insulting them. The prostitute journalist is a familiar and well-understood figure in the Middle East, and Saddam Hussein's regime made lavish use of the buyability of the regional press. Now we, too, have hired that clapped-out old floozy, Miss Rosie Scenario, and sent her whoring through the streets. If there was one single thing that gave a certain grandeur to the change of regime in Baghdad, it was the reopening of the free press (with the Communist Party's paper the first one back on the streets just after the statue fell) and the profusion of satellite dishes, radio stations, and TV programs. There were some crass exceptions—Paul Bremer's decision to close Muqtada Sadr's paper being one of the stupidest and most calamitous decisions—but in general it was something to be proud of. Now any fool is entitled to say that a free Iraqi paper is a mouthpiece, and any killer is licensed to allege that a free Iraqi reporter is a mercenary. A fine day's work. Someone should be fired for it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2131566/

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

we should blow up al jazeera. this is all going to go back burner soon.

Our allies the Russian, you remember, the guys you though we needed to listen to about Iraq, well it seems they are selling a billion dollars worth of missiles to Iran. The UN has concluded that Iran will have the atomic bomb in a matter of months and its President has set forth a goal of eliminating Israel. By Spring Israel will hav eblown up large chunks of Iran.

By the way, didn't I havve a bet with SHP or one of you that there would not be an invasion of Syria by last Spring- someone owes this board support money.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

The one thing that I can't quite get a handle on - and it's a determinative thing, in my mind - were we paying to publish untruths, or truths?

Makes a difference to me. If we were simply trying to get some page space for articles and info that accurately set out something that we thought the readers should know, I see no problem. If, however, we were trying to slip inaccurate info out there under the guise of an independent article. then Hitch is correct, in my mind.

The general in charge of this effort today gave a press conference in which he very strongly denied there were any untruths, inaccuracies, or even slants - that he simply wanted the info out there and it wasn't getting reported. As part of convincing the Iraqis of the progress of the efforts, that would seem to be a primary and acceptable means.

So, I think we need more info.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

I thought that, at Spanky's suggestion, we were firing all the press secretaries as a waste of dollars and an inappropriate use of government. I personally want to fire them across the board, which means in Iraq, too, and whether they are on the payroll of the President, the Minority Leader, or the Army.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

My response was a bit more emotional than it was well thought out. Shocking, no?

I walk thru a bookstore every day at lunch and see more and more of these “we are so fucked” or “someone is lying to you” or “these are the cancers you’ll be getting and they’re caused by Exxon and big pharma” books that I got a visceral reaction from reading a blurb about Collapse. I just so want it to be 1999 again. I think I have Clinton withdrawal... I mean, I am libertarian by nature, so I should be kinda psyched about some of what Bush has been doing... But I can’t help feeling down. The Oped pages are all bad, and the books aren’t about being a billionaire at 40 anymore; they’re telling me how to avoid getting leukemia from Splenda or how social security will be bankrupt in 2020. Sometimes it feels like society’s in a Hobbesian meltdown. No fun.

So I guess my point is, I don’t want to read about collapses anymore. I’d like to see a little more Irrational Exuberance around.

Is there a way to treat cynicism?

Watch what you say, they'll be calling you a radical.
 

Strippers and blow. Duh.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

I have some shares of a tech stock I'd like to sell you. I'm willing to part with them for 1999 prices. A bargain!

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

This article misses the point. There is no question that if the information gets out it will have a negative effect. However, if the information had never gotten out then it would have been OK. If the story was leaked by the enemy then the Pentagon screwed up. But if an American reporter found this information and released it, that is no different from an an American reporter releasing the location of American soldiers. Whoever leaked this story is giving aid and confort to the enemy and insuring that more American soldiers get killed.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Oh, I'm just comforted that I bought Gary Winnick a few plasma televisions for his guest home's gazebo/spa. I know how tough it can be trudging to the main home to get a manicure.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Comfort to the enemy? I know its a term of art, but has it been used since Franz Ferdinand's assassination?

did you just out your baltassoc sock?

So you're saying she uses that sock when she wants to dumb herself down- like how i would use my GGG sock?

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Our Constitution protects the right of every journalist - nay, every citizen - to work against his government. Ellsworth made this clear.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Spanky, here's the proof for my last post.

It's a passe' concept.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

You know, you claim to have a conscience, and to be guided by a moral code. But, if one reads your posts, it becomes clear that on the political front you have no scruples at all. The only issue for you is whether or not something will help us win.

If you conclude that something will help us win, then it's okay, no mater how dishonest, nefarious, or violative of basic principles of moral or social decency. If you conclude something is likely to reduce the chance of our winning, or to harm our effort, then you are absolutist in your conviction that it is is wrong, and those behind the action you declare wrong are to be punished and destroyed.

I started this post thinking I was going to accuse you of being terribly Machiavellian. But I changed my mind midway through. You aren't merely a would-be Prince. You are a Pretender to God's throne. Where do you get your chutzpah?

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Except for those who hold public office and their deputies. Leon Jaworski and Judge Sirica helped spread that news.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Um, I just wanted a field trip to some museum.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Where do you get the Chutzpah? You are so confused by your moral relativism you don't know which way is up. Until you have some sense of right and wrong all your posts are going to sound ridiculous.

Why is paying off journalists to write sympathetic stories such a heinous act? Why does this act fall in the category of "doing anything" to win the war? I am not talking about extermination of the local population, torturing, etc. I am just talking about paying some journalist to write a story. Considering that most of the time to accomplish an objective in war you need to kill or maim people, just paying off a journalist is a pretty benign act. No one is getting killed or even hurt yet you make it sound like a war crime.

When we have occupied other countries (Japan and Germany) we have controlled and censored the press. Yet all we have done here is try and influence the press. But because we have tried to pay off a journalist we have completely lost all sense of decency? Give me a break.

I never said anything was OK to win a war, but some things should be done to win a war. What is wrong with using propaganda to win a war?

When Geraldo drew a map on the ground during the invasion of his location everyone freaked out and he was almost fired. But when an American newspaperman leaks some information that its only benefit will be to aid the enemy in the propaganda war you don't see a problem? What possible benefit could reporting on this have? But it will definitely aid the enemy in their propaganda war. So why report on it?

What is totally obvious here it is clear that you and the reporter that leaked the story don't want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

As soon as Amazon.idiot gets it to me I will read it. I think the exhibit will last until January 17, 2006 (NCS am I wrong?) so as long as I get to it in the next couple of weeks we will be OK.

I was watching this show on PBS where some Harvard professor was asking people "tough" moral questions. The professor asked Peter Jennings that if the United States was in a war with North Kosan (obviously a parallel with North Vietnam or North Korea) and he was imbedded with a North Kosanese platoon on patrol, and a situation arose where they were about to ambush an American patrol, and Jennings had the opporunity to warn the these American soliders to save their lives, would he do it. Peter Jennings first response was that he would not. He said it was his duty as a journalist to not get involved and stay objective.

After further disucssion among all the participants it became clear that Jennings position was completely insane and stupid. Jennings backtracked and apologised. But this insane way of thinking seems to have infected the media. The presses self apointed obligation to stay objective and not involved is no high moral position. It is easily trumped by more important moral issues. Like saving lives and furthering causes that are good.

Defeating the insurgency in Iraq is righteous and moral cause. Does anyone disagree with that? So why doesn't our success in Iraq morally trump the presses desire to be "objective" and "non-involved". Of course the press can really do whatever they want, but if their actions help the enemy, especially an evil enemy, anyone with any sense of decency should find their actions morally repugnant.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Don't be so obtuse. When we think that other markets are working poorly, the government regulates them. Why not this one? If reporting is a public good -- and the Framers of the Constitution clearly thought it was -- then why wouldn't it be appropriate for the government to encourage its production?

Perhaps you're worried that the government will meddle with the news, bend it to its own purposes. I share the concern. But when this concern arises in other contexts -- think about how the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board or the director of the FBI serve -- there are ways to address it.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

That is what socialists and economic morons do when they think markets are working poorly and usually with disastrous results. Farm subsidies screw the consumer by increasing food prices (which hits hardest on the people least able to afford it) and raises taxes. Airline Deregulation and telecom deregulation greatly decreased prices and improved service. The only time markets need to be regulated is when you have a monopoly situation. In other words, to increase competition. Otherwise trying to regulate the market does not help. That doesn't mean you shouldn't pass laws to protect public safety etc. but almost every time the government thnks it can improve a market it screws it up.

Just because it is a public good doesn't mean that the government should interfere. I know the founders would agree with me on that. A government intervention into the press and media would be a huge waste of money and would probably make the system worse. Encourage production? Why? Because it works so well with Oranges? I may not like the type of news that the public is demanding, but that doesn't mean the government should step in and give them what I think they should have. I don't want you or any bureacrat deciding what news the American public needs.

Another problem and I can't think of one possible benefit.

The Central Bank and the FBI is where you need government involvement. When it comes to the press you don't need any government involvement. What are you suggesting, some quasi political apointee like the Federal Reserve Chairman or FBI director to "oversee" news distribution. A news Czar? You can't be serious.

The government has plenty of things that it has responsiblity for that it hasn't taken care of. Mainly eduction. We don't need to add another responsibility. Especially one where I don't see where the government could do any good.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

This is the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time. Government justifiably does all sorts of things to regulate markets short of addressing monopolization. For example, it enforces laws against fraud. It restricts pollution. This is because there are other forms of market failure besides monopolization. To take just one more example, the government requires lenders to provide information when extending credit, because markets fail when information is too assymetric.

Does government power get abused (e.g., with farm subsidies)? Sure. So?

Not ipso facto. The question I was raising was, is there anything the government can do to make this market work better?

Perhaps, but doesn't it depend on what the intervention is?

What? Have you been drinking?

Nor do I. Maybe if we had better media, your critical reading skills would be better.

Recall that the premise of this little conversation was that there isn't enough hard reporting, because it's cheaper to provide op-ed fluff. So the possible benefit would be more reporting. I thought you agreed with premise.

I don't recall suggesting that, no.

How about setting up another public broadcasting corporation, to be run by a board of directors with an equal number of democratic and republican appointees, each to be confirmed by a vote of 2/3 of the Senate? It could be funded by an endowment, rather than by continuing appropriations, and it could have a well-defined mission to serve the public good by gathering and broadcasting news.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Why do you need to read the book?

No sense of responsiblity.........
 

Sometimes I think we would be better off if they just nuked Hollywood. All these pretentious actors whining about the war etc when they are promoting one of the biggest killers in the US. When they stop appearing in movies that glamorize smoking I might listen to their political opinions.


Smoke thickens on silver screen

RESEARCHERS WARN OF COPYCAT TEENS

By Lisa M. Krieger and Glennda Chui

Mercury News


Smoking is back in vogue in the movies -- especially films rated for young audiences -- and that's bad news for efforts to keep teens from lighting up.

How bad? Very bad, according to researchers at the University of California-San Francisco who examined almost 60 studies on smoking in the movies and among teenagers.

Nearly 80 percent of American movies rated PG-13 contain tobacco scenes -- from ``Anchorman'' to ``Ocean's 12.'' And while the number of smoke-filled scenes in all U.S. films declined for decades, it's back up to levels not seen since the 1950s.

On-screen smoking is part of the reason 390,000 U.S. teenagers try their first cigarette each year, according to a report by UC-San Francisco's Stanton Glantz and Annemarie Charlesworth in the December issue of the journal Pediatrics. That's half of all new teen smokers.

The researchers urge an R rating for films that depict smoking, echoing a previous recommendation by the American Medical Association, the National PTA, the attorneys general of 32 states and a growing number of other groups.

``The science is very solid. Smoking in the movies has a very substantial effect on the risk that kids will get addicted to nicotine,'' Glantz said.

Speaking for the Motion Picture Association of America, Gayle Osterberg said industry statistics show only about half of PG-13 movies over the past two years featured tobacco use.

``Everybody agrees that smoking is a serious health problem and that our industry shouldn't be encouraging or glamorizing smoking,'' she said.

In the new study, Glantz and Charlesworth collected the results of 59 studies -- 42 on smoking in the movies and 17 more on teen smoking -- to examine the influence of smoking on-screen. Taken together, the evidence shows that smoking in the movies promotes adolescent smoking, they concluded.

The findings include:

• Nearly four out of five PG-13 movies show someone -- usually a major character -- smoking cigarettes or cigars or chewing tobacco.

• Only about half as many people in the United States smoke as did in 1950 -- but that's not true on the silver screen. A sample of top-grossing films over the past 50 years found that the amount of smoking decreased from an average of 10.7 events an hour in 1950 to a low of 4.9 in 1982 -- and then shot up to 10.9 by 2002. (Events range from a character lighting a cigarette to a shot of a tobacco advertisement.)

• Because on-screen smokers are adults, teens see their behavior as sophisticated and something to emulate. And while smokers in real life tend to be of lower socioeconomic status, smokers on-screen are primarily white males from upper income brackets.

The researchers point to popular actor Jude Law, who smokes in ``Closer,'' ``Alfie'' and ``The Aviator.'' Nearly every major character lights up in the Will Ferrell comedy ``Anchorman.''

Hollywood heartthrobs Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts have lit up on screen. The animated character Hercules puffs on a cigar in Disney's G-rated ``Hercules.'' Even aliens pack Marlboros in ``Men In Black'' and ``Men in Black II,'' both of which are rated PG-13.

The UC-San Francisco researchers and anti-smoking advocates say all those movies should be rated R. They're seeking voluntary compliance.

``This doesn't mean that `Men In Black' and `Men In Black II' can't promote Marlboro,'' Glantz said. ``It means that if Steven Spielberg wants them to have a PG-13 rating, he'll need to cut out the promotions.''

Osterberg, of the motion picture association, said that ``tying a rating to any single item is a bit of a slippery slope, because there are all kinds of behaviors parents find objectionable.''

But Kori Titus, director of an American Lung Association program in Sacramento that has teenagers monitor tobacco use in 250 to 300 movies each year, said kids often don't see things as adults do.

``What we may consider the bad guy, often they have traits these teenagers want to emulate,'' she said. ``They're edgy, they're hip and yes, they're smoking on-screen.''

Over the past 11 years, Titus said, 75 percent of the most popular PG-13 movies featured tobacco use. Last year alone, 77 percent of PG-13 movies and 9 percent of PG movies -- including the animated hit ``The Incredibles'' -- had characters who used tobacco.

Kaitlin Kelly-Reif, 17, of Sacramento has been reviewing movies for the project -- called Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down! -- for four years. She notes not only how many times tobacco appears, but whether it's portrayed as sexy or cool, denotes wealth or power, or is mentioned by brand.

``I think it's been really helpful for me overall, because I'm more aware of what I'm watching, and how Hollywood uses certain tools such as tobacco,'' Kaitlin said. ``Also that tobacco is not something that's cool -- it's something Hollywood says is cool.''

The UC-San Francisco researchers would make exceptions to the R rating for films, such as ``Constantine,'' that show the dangers of smoking.

And, they'd exempt others, such as ``Good Night, and Good Luck,'' which realistically portrays the smoke-filled 1950s-era TV newsroom of Edward R. Murrow. ``The cigarette was a defining part of the persona of Edward Murrow, who ended up dying of lung cancer,'' Glantz said.