The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?

There is a difference between regulating business and regulating markets. You can regulate business to prevent fraud, protect health etc. But regulating the "market" means deciding you know better how to allocate resources than the market. Consumers are pretty good at looking out for themselves as long as there is competition. Requiring businesses to disclose information is not regulating the market. Regulating the market is when you set quotas, or legislate a price, limit competition or subsidize certain businesses.

It is the difference between trying to take control or simply just setting rules.

Whenver the government tries to "regulate the market" they end up wasting tax dollars and not providing a better product at a better price.

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

NO

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Perhaps, but doesn't it depend on what the intervention is?

Unless you are just implementing business rules like "you can't intentional lie". There is nothing the government can do. But trying to decide that the market is not giving the people what they want or need is when government gets out of line.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

This is the crux of the issue right here. This is what makes you an Old School big government liberal. Your knee jerk reaction is to have government do something about the problem. Just because I don't like something does not mean I think government should step in and do something about it. I may not like popular music but that doesn't mean I want the government to step in force music on the radio I like. The problem with that way of thinking is that more often than not government makes the problem worse. There are plenty of news organizations, and plenty of serious reporting but it is not what the people want. These organizations are giving the people what they want. We may not like it but it is not our place to tell the American public what sort of news they should watch or read.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop 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.

This would be a waste of money and effort. It would just be forcing taxpayers to pay for the type of news shows that we want. I don't think the government should be in the business of producing news. I don't really like the government being in any sort of business.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I hope he's wrong, but worry he's right. I keep waiting for someone to explain what we're going to do differently to turn things around over there. Bush unveils his "new strategy" which is a bunch of talking points about how the old strategy is working, without anything else. Many Dems seem to be more concerned with positioning themselves for the next election than with figuring out what we need to change. (Although it's hard to blame them, since the Administration couldn't care less what they have to, and the GOP is trying to run Congress so as to make their votes irrelevant.) And the press is more interested in the political posturing and consequences than in the substance of our policy. (Although it's hard to blame them, since doing actual reporting from Iraq is a good way to get yourself killed.)

Dean is making an empirical assessment that our policy has failed and that there's nothing we can do about it. Murtha reached a similar conclusion. I'm sure both of them have better information than I do -- nevertheless, I hope they're wrong.

What I don't get is why you are -- or pretend to be -- so offended at Dean. It's pretty clear to me what he's saying.

etfs

The point is that there are soldiers in the field trying to do their job and a statement like this from one of the leaders of the two main political parties does not help. What is really pathetic about this is that he can't possibly know this. No one could know this. If he said the odds don't look good and we should leave is one thing, but to say definitely that we can't win is utter B.S. and only serves to demoralize the troops and to embolden the enemy. It is completely irresponsible.

We are coming up to an election. Couldn't he keep his mouth shut until after the election? Can't these naysayers just shut up for a couple of weeks to see if we can pull of a good election and then start their belly aching? They can't wait until after the election because they want us to fail. They are more concerned about Bush looking bad than they are about the future of the United States or Iraq.

[Spanky]

How can anyone possibly say it was immoral for the US to invade Iraq and remove this guy?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...IAL.xml&rpc=22

Not in the U.S's strategic interest - maybe. But immoral. No way. The invasion was definitely the moral thing to do.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point is that there are soldiers in the field trying to do their job and a statement like this from one of the leaders of the two main political parties does not help. What is really pathetic about this is that he can't possibly know this. No one could know this. If he said the odds don't look good and we should leave is one thing, but to say definitely that we can't win is utter B.S. and only serves to demoralize the troops and to embolden the enemy. It is completely irresponsible.

We are coming up to an election. Couldn't he keep his mouth shut until after the election? Can't these naysayers just shut up for a couple of weeks to see if we can pull of a good election and then start their belly aching? They can't wait until after the election because they want us to fail. They are more concerned about Bush looking bad than they are about the future of the United States or Iraq.

He is entitled to his opinion. The "he is undermining soldiers in the field" argument you are making is one of the most unfortunate arguments I can imagine. It undermines the spirit of free discussion that is, after all, one of the most important hallmarks of our Democracy.

But, more importantly, taking this position avoids any real discussion of the war in depth and detail, and the repeated attempts by the administration to ridicule and slur their opponents into silence has had a very unfortunate effect on the quality of the debate, which is about as poor a debate as I can imagine for a serious issue.

From what I can see the only people who have truly sought to raise the level of debate on the national political stage have been Murtha and McCain.

Win and Lose are loaded words; we will not have either an outright and total win (that is, all the Iraqis will not be gathering together to sing "Kumbayah" and "America the Beautiful" anytime soon), and we will not have an outright and total loss. For me, a decade or so of peace and relatively stability in the Middle East would constitute a win - and that is what I would like to see the discussion focus on in Congress, rather than these cheap charges of disloyalty and bumper-sticker patriotism.

I do not think we will have a sensible discussion, in part because many of Bush's ardent supporters are Hawks eager to light a fuse in Iran or Syria, and he has played to this gallery, but if he were smart, he would be saying that stability is victory, and make the argument for the Middle East being less volatile today than it was four years ago. I will confess that I would give more credit to the Israelis and Palestinians for the increased stability, rather than to our invasion of Iraq, but I would like to at least hear a rational, dispasionate argument that Iraq has had this effect.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sometimes I think we would be better off if they just nuked Hollywood.

When Arnold gets the green light to set 'em off, you'll give us a heads-up, right? I'd hate to think that this investment in on-board relationships will add up to naught.

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.

And not so for Anchorman? Without the smokes, the turtleneck and the just-off-the-air scotch, Ron Burgundy would be reduced to an Andy Stitzer.

And no one wants that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
We are coming up to an election. Couldn't he keep his mouth shut until after the election? Can't these naysayers just shut up for a couple of weeks to see if we can pull of a good election and then start their belly aching? They can't wait until after the election because they want us to fail. They are more concerned about Bush looking bad than they are about the future of the United States or Iraq.

My new read on the current crop of "omigawd, we have to get out NOW!" howlers is this: It's becoming more and more apparent that we are, in fact, achieving what we had hoped to achieve in Iraq - i.e., it looks like we are gonna win this - and the various actors are suddenly terrified, because a good Iraq outcome will prove wrong the entire, complete basis of their political stance over the last two years.

They have nothing else to fall back on. The whole party right now rests on "Bush sux in Iraq." If Iraqis vote big-time in this next set of elections, and start forming workable coalitions and cleaning out the terrorists themselves, and we start bringing people home, there's a huge hole on the left - there's no party position remaining at all.

So, I guess we have passed that point where people can't be treasonous because they're fighting for their vision of America, and entered into "they want us to fail simply so that they can win votes."

On the plus side, I can now foresee Dean costing the D's a whole 'nuther election cycle all by himself. Truly a giant among men.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
For the same reasons your answer offends me: The evidence, should you ever care to search it out (you won't be offered it by your media) and should you ever look at it dispassionately, suggests VERY strongly that we're winning now.

See, here's the thing.

You're participating on a board of educated professionals who, though often indulging in exercises of creative writing and experimental hackery, occasionally break through the noise to try and have substantive conversations.

Except for Hank, all of us have jobs. We consume what information we can, when we can, and try to make sense of it. This is a particular challenge with Iraq, because unless (say) one happens to work inside the E-Ring and sifts through thousands of reports a day, NO ONE really knows jack shit about Iraq. It's too big of a country, and there's too much different stuff going on to get your arms around it very well. It's all anecdotal information cobbled together from media sources, friends who are in the field, etc.

So when I read posters who admit to not knowing the answer, and worrying that things are not going well, that strikes me as an honest, and not irrational, response.

Your response, apparently, is to be offended by that. I read you telling us that we're just not looking very hard, dammit, because the evidence (which is outside the MSM) tells you that we ARE winning. Oh, and by the way, there ARE traitors.

Strikes me that it's not too much for the unwashed, incurious, liberal Bush-hating masses to ask "okay, where?" Otherwise, you've just declared the conversation to be over.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
He is entitled to his opinion.

Yeeeaaarrrggh.

The "he is undermining soldiers in the field" argument you are making is one of the most unfortunate arguments I can imagine. It undermines the spirit of free discussion that is, after all, one of the most important hallmarks of our Democracy.

Don't you assume that the argument is untrue to get to this conclusion? If it's valid, don't you need to consider the cost - the undermining of the moral - as part of the calculus of, just because we can say this, should we?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I hope he's wrong, but worry he's right. I keep waiting for someone to explain what we're going to do differently to turn things around over there. Bush unveils his "new strategy" which is a bunch of talking points about how the old strategy is working, without anything else. Many Dems seem to be more concerned with positioning themselves for the next election than with figuring out what we need to change. (Although it's hard to blame them, since the Administration couldn't care less what they have to, and the GOP is trying to run Congress so as to make their votes irrelevant.) And the press is more interested in the political posturing and consequences than in the substance of our policy. (Although it's hard to blame them, since doing actual reporting from Iraq is a good way to get yourself killed.)

Dean is making an empirical assessment that our policy has failed and that there's nothing we can do about it. Murtha reached a similar conclusion. I'm sure both of them have better information than I do -- nevertheless, I hope they're wrong.


What I don't get is why you are -- or pretend to be -- so offended at Dean. It's pretty clear to me what he's saying.

etfs

1. We will undoubtedly win the "war" to place a democracy in Iraq. The people saying it is "unwinnable" are really saying "It is unwinnable within a short timetable and with an acceptable (read: minimal) level of casualties." The question is "How much blood and cash will it cost?" The issue is one of staying power and the public's capacity for escalating casualties. But there is no doubt that if we stay, we will knuckle the insuregents under from sheer force of pressure and time. Recall, the British didn't run because they were "losing" in the Middle East. They left because they were overextended.

2. Dean is a flat out four star imbecile. Along with others, like Coulter, his nonsense doesn't deserve to be debated anywhere, even here. He's a shock jock politico. He throws firebombs out there to rally a virulent, deluded, small core of obsolete left wingers who no longer have a voice. Howard Dean is a joke and should be treated as such.

3. That Dean is an idiot doesn't make his statement entirely wrong ("Even a blind pig stumbles upon an acorn...," etc...). Rummy is McNamara II. We need more masssive force to slam home a quick voctory. To do that, we need a massive infusion of bodies on the ground to overwhelm the insurgents. Simply put, to win this thing, we need a massive bucket of blood, and the only way to get that is to double troop strength. I applaud Rummy for trying to fight a new type of war. There is nothing wrong with trying to win a war with minimum bodies on the ground. But you can't do it when the enemy hides among the innocents. You can't bomb entire cities to smithereens. The collateral damge is too high. So you need more soldiers. Will a Dem do what's right and necessary and send more bodies there? Or will he kowtow to public sentiment and do the popular thing and pull out? My guess is the latter.

4. If we declare victory and run away leaving the country a shambles, we'll create a rift with the Arab world that can never be repaired. Cutting and running because a few thousand more will die is sacrificing tens of thousands in our nation and elsewhere over the coming decades. I don't think we should have gone into Iraq, but now we're there, and there is no option but to complete the misssion, no matter how many casualties it takes. Its pathetic we're faced with such a shitty situation, but thats the hand, and there is no other way to play it.

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
My new read on the current crop of "omigawd, we have to get out NOW!" howlers is this: It's becoming more and more apparent that we are, in fact, achieving what we had hoped to achieve in Iraq - i.e., it looks like we are gonna win this - and the various actors are suddenly terrified, because a good Iraq outcome will prove wrong the entire, complete basis of their political stance over the last two years.

They have nothing else to fall back on. The whole party right now rests on "Bush sux in Iraq." If Iraqis vote big-time in this next set of elections, and start forming workable coalitions and cleaning out the terrorists themselves, and we start bringing people home, there's a huge hole on the left - there's no party position remaining at all.

So, I guess we have passed that point where people can't be treasonous because they're fighting for their vision of America, and entered into "they want us to fail simply so that they can win votes."

On the plus side, I can now foresee Dean costing the D's a whole 'nuther election cycle all by himself. Truly a giant among men.

I will take this position more seriously when I see a higher standard of debate on the Republican side.

As I said, a debate between Murtha and McCain would strike me as informative, interesting, and likely to be very productive. I cannot think of anyone else in the administration, in Congress, or on the national stage who is engaging in a productive debate.

And if it is sad that Dean is doing this bumper-sticker debate thing, it is far sadder that Bush and Cheney, in their esteemed positions, are doing the same. Doesn't anyone see that the childish yelling backing and forth demeans the Presidency far more than the August Office of Chief Hack occupied by Dean?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Strikes me that it's not too much for the unwashed, incurious, liberal Bush-hating masses to ask "okay, where?" Otherwise, you've just declared the conversation to be over.

Yeah, we are generally a community of well-read, educated, intelligent professionals. What's more, given the vocation, we're generally a community well-trained in information-gathering, situational analysis, and presentation.

There's a ton of info on Iraq out there, all over. I can find a pile of it in minutes, from people who are there, both on the ground and running things. I can find more from people going over to have a look and then coming back to tell us. It's easy to find.

So, I combine those two concepts - that this community should be most gifted at tracking down and analyzing all of this info, and that the info is out there, and I'm left with one overriding impression: the responses on this board that say "gee, where is all this info" are, at best, disingenuous.

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, we are generally a community of well-read, educated, intelligent professionals. What's more, given the vocation, we're generally a community well-trained in information-gathering, situational analysis, and presentation.

There's a ton of info on Iraq out there, all over. I can find a pile of it in minutes, from people who are there, both on the ground and running things. I can find more from people going over to have a look and then coming back to tell us. It's easy to find.

So, I combine those two concepts - that this community should be most gifted at tracking down and analyzing all of this info, and that the info is out there, and I'm left with one overriding impression: the responses on this board that say "gee, where is all this info" are, at best, disingenuous.

Can you find a reasonably dispassionate discussion of "winning" versus "losing" by someone with a combination of expertise in the Middle East and in military matters? I would be interested in such a discussion; again, I think it all will come down to how we define "Win", and I personally want to see us define it in a way that will leave us Winning.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
And if it is sad that Dean is doing this bumper-sticker debate thing, it is far sadder that Bush and Cheney, in their esteemed positions, are doing the same. Doesn't anyone see that the childish yelling backing and forth demeans the Presidency far more than the August Office of Chief Hack occupied by Dean?

Where do you run into these rants? Bush's speech on Iraq strategy a few days ago seemed pretty cogent, informative, to the point, and calm.

And, Murtha as the voice of reason? Murtha can't decide what he wants to say, even in the space of one interview. He likes Bush, Bush has a good plan, and Bush needs a plan? C'mon, find another.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Captain
Can you find a reasonably dispassionate discussion of "winning" versus "losing" by someone with a combination of expertise in the Middle East and in military matters? I would be interested in such a discussion; again, I think it all will come down to how we define "Win", and I personally want to see us define it in a way that will leave us Winning.

As a first step, I'll throw out my definition of "win" here, and let's see if there's any controversy there:

We accomplish the stated goals of: removing Saddam, initiating the process of establishing a constitutional democracy, (and it appears going forward that that process is . . . well, . . . progressing well, meaning, the country votes and elects and legislates and enforces as an expression of popular will instead of concentrated power), Iraq is no longer a destabilizing influence on the rest of the ME (and is, in fact, a stabilizing influence), Iraq is left as a willing friend and ally and business partner of the USA, and we bring home our military in stages as these things happen.

To me, that's a win.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, we are generally a community of well-read, educated, intelligent professionals. What's more, given the vocation, we're generally a community well-trained in information-gathering, situational analysis, and presentation.

There's a ton of info on Iraq out there, all over. I can find a pile of it in minutes, from people who are there, both on the ground and running things. I can find more from people going over to have a look and then coming back to tell us. It's easy to find.

So, I combine those two concepts - that this community should be most gifted at tracking down and analyzing all of this info, and that the info is out there, and I'm left with one overriding impression: the responses on this board that say "gee, where is all this info" are, at best, disingenuous.

"It's out there, and if you're not reading the same stuff and coming to the same conclusion that I am -- that we're winning, and that this is all the fault of the MSM and traitorous liberals -- then you're being disengenous. At best."

Yeah, this'll be a fun debate.