> ... That is to say, the goal was to enable Americans again to
> feel safe.
Deborah Harrell responded,
"Feeling safe" is in itself an interesting concept; if
Americans _feel_ safer, yet are not _actually_ safer,
will that be enough of a 'victory?'
As a practical matter, that will be called `victory'. People always
make judgements. When enough judgements -- enough `feelings' --
combine to suggest an actuality, they will think it is actual.
There is even a mathematics for adding judgements; you can add lots
and lots of evidence, but it never reaches certainty:
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/certainty-factors.html
Of course, the people who make the judgements may be wrong. In that
case, the methods for making judgements were flawed. That is how
confidence tricksters and magicians succeed. That is also the origin
of the proverb `the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.
... Would it change our outlook to call gangs 'domestic
terrorists' and realize that they take thousands of lives
annually?**
Only if enough people decided to believe that the gang members best
fit into the category `terrorist'. Humans do tend to put people into
definite categories -- it is one of the ways humns perceive and
organize their perceptions of the world.
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/guttman-scales.html
This form of categorization can be helpful or dangerous. I think we
now pay considerable attention to mis-categorizations. In medical
terms, these are `false positives' and `false negatives'.
Even police are beginning to worry about too many erroneous
classifications -- in the past the people they mis-classified as
criminals were generally powerless, so mistakes did not matter to the
police. But nowadays, the misclassified do not always fall into the
category of powerless and can cause trouble.
> ...As a practical matter, such a desire means danger to
> Americans since the United States government has sided with
> dictators such as the rulers of Saudi Arabia...
Who have conveniently promised to increase oil
production beginning in June, although we won't likely
see a drop in gasoline prices until...the fall.
Right. So the President, for his own reasons as well as for national
reasons, must tell people clearly what his and by extension US goals
should be, and do so believably. Otherwise, some people will think he
is failing. (See my message following up on `The Goal was Victory'.)
> I do not know what to expect.....Will the President
> lay out a strategic plan that not only looks like
> it will succeed in the near future but also appeals
> to enough Americans that the country can follow it
> for 40 or 60 years?
I do not recall Bush calling for such a Marshall-style
plan before the war; ...
Before the war, he and others in his administration did talk of
bringing peace, prosperity, and democracy to various dictatorships.
After the war, the Bush Administration sought more than US$50 billion
for investment in Iraqi over the next five or seven years. In an
international donors' conference a year ago, the Bush Administration
promised US$20 billion from the US. Others promised about US$13
billion. (Note these were promises of funding, not planned
expenditure.)
Thus, on the one hand, the Bush Administration did call for a
`Marshall-style' plan. On the other hand, it failed dismally in its
implementation.
Rather than say `we fell 40% short in promises, and far more than that
in funded expenditure', the Bush Administration contradicted their
previous calls and termed the conference a success. (It appears not
to be a `try and try again' administration, to use an old fashioned
phrase.)
I think that the impression of a
relatively easy military victory, followed by a
grateful Iraqi public happily embracing American-style
democracy, was deliberately fostered by his
administration. What that says about their estimation
of the 'average American' is not flattering.
Both statements look true to me.
But many still say that President Bush might win the US election in
November, which suggests that he or his advisors are politically
shrewd and doing what is for them the `right thing'.
The problem is whether these actions are good for the country and/or
good for the Republican party in the long run?
Please remember, senior Republicans, such as President Bush, but also
the leaders of the House and Senate, tell people through their actions
that the word `conservative' in US politics now means an
Administration that
* sets up a policy of long term government deficits, not one of
either cutting government spending or of raising taxes.
* declares itself entitled to arrest and hold US citizens
indefinitely, without trial, or other kind of check by another
branch of government. Such actions go against the US
constitution, at least if you hold a `strict constructionist'
view.
* extends nationalized medical spending, which is a socialist way of
acting. Moreover, rather than provide for multiple funding
entities, the funding is to come from one governmental agency.
(Rather than fund drug development by having a government enforce
output restrictions, which patents do, you could fund drug
development by having a government tax people and then pay the
proceeds to large numbers of independent organizations -- to
universities, for example. This mixes the problem that a high
initial combined with a low incremental cost hinders private
investment (when the market is competitive and free) but avoids
the notorious problem that governments often fail.
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/high-initial.html
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/regulation.html
)
* extends government subsidies for agriculture and the like. Thus,
states in the center of the US tend to receive more funding from
the Federal government than they pay the Federal government in
taxes.
* fails to order the US army to search, at the earliest possible
time, `known' suspected sites containing chemical, biological,
radiological, or nuclear weapons in Iraq. (This is a separate
issue from finding, later, that such weapons cannot be found; the
latter search tells us either that the weapons were never there or
that enemies of the US took them before the US looked for them.)
The question is whether this long term policy will be successful,
shrewd as it may be for the short term?
Obviously, as Keynes famously said, `in the long run, we are all
dead'. But most people have children; all belong to a culture of some
sort. Most want either or both to continue. So even when people
think in the short run, they also think long run.
But short run concerns do trump long run concerns. This is practical.
So the focus of attention can and will sway, or be swayed, one way or
the other.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
As I slowly update it, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I rewrite a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
