Below I post about the possible self-fulfilling prophecy of an Iraqi quagmire based on an unprecedented display of biased one-sided reporting. Powerline does a nice job of going back in time and putting into context the sacrifice that has been made to defend freedom. They help us imagine how WWII would have been reported by today’s MSM and how that may have effected the outcome.

They also drive home the point of the complete absence of context to the daily Iraq death tabulation by referring to a stunning fact: the peacetime accidental casualty rate in the military forces between 1983-1996 was greater than the current casualty rate in Iraq by a two to one margin.

One of the concepts that stuck with me from my days studying sociology (man does that seem like a long time ago) was the self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s such a powerful concept. We believe something to be true, conduct ourselves as if it’s true, and the result of our conduct reifies our original belief. I recall an example the professor gave in the context of discriminatory behavior. When he was young he worked in a store in a neighborhood which had a number of recent Polish immigrants. Apparently Poles were generally viewed with suspicion in his neighborhood, and his boss told him to watch out for them stealing from the store. Sure enough, over the next several months my professor caught a few stealing. “My boss was right”, he thought, “they are thieves.” Of course the moral of the story was that Poles were no more inclined to steal than anyone else. He had simply focused on Poles to the exclusion of all others, and so his prophecy had been fulfilled. Let’s take this concept out of university setting and see where else it applies.

With the aid of a biased media that practices agenda journalism, irresponsible partisan politicians may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of massive proportions with respect to the Iraq war. Central to a self-fulfilling prophecy is a one sided view that is blind to facts that do not fit with the preconceptions. While there can be no doubt that there has been significant bloodshed in Iraq, just compare the stories one hears in the MSM (well actually it’s hard to call them stories rather than a constant news cycle of fifteen second spots highlighting the latest bombings) and what we learn from the blogosphere. There is good news from Iraq – shops are opening, commerce is increasing, infrastructure improving, the press is free, democracy is taking root – but the media never, and I mean never reports it. To put matters in perspective, imagine if you lived in China, knew nothing of the U.S., and the only source of information you recieved was a daily stream video of the most horrific homicides from across the country. No Yankee scores, no crop reports or factory openings, no other indirect sources of information about the U.S. such as books, movies or T.V. shows, just news reports of the most horrific murders several times a day, every day. Sure those individual reports would be technically “true” but collectively the image portrayed would be of a country embroiled in bloody anarchy.

The media has created the perception of an irretractable quagmire in Iraq, and many irresponsible politicians on the left, and even some from the right, are acting as if this media-driven perception is the truth, thereby beginning the process of fulfilling the prophecy. You see, there is a very real terrorist insurgency in Iraq but it lacks the necessary popular support and military capability to overthrow the government. Contrary to what you read in the papers, Iraq is carrying on despite the bombings and kidnappings. It doesn’t take an expert to figure out that if the U.S. cuts and runs before Iraqis are militarily self-sufficient, two things will happen: the current Iraq regime and military forces with be weakened both in terms of actual strength and morale, and the terrorists will be emboldened and likely gain in strength. The prophecy is fulfilled.

Just like the shopkeeper only looking at the Poles to find thieves, if all we look for is a quagmire, a quagmire we will have.

There are millions of Americans with very strong views about the war in Iraq. Many of them have lost loved ones in Iraq, many of them are very outspoken. Some of them support the war, while others oppose it. Given Sheehan’s radical views, why is she given such special attention?

One possible explanation is that the media is simply treating her as a freak show, akin to the Michael Jackson saga. She’s news because she’s on the fringe. But consider the tone of the coverage and ask yourself whether the media approaches her with skepticism or deference. Is there a tone of condescension or respect? Are the “facts” that she recites scrutinized or simply regurgitated? It seems pretty clear that the media isn’t treating her as if she’s the story. No, her message is the story.

Sadly this appears to be yet another example of agenda journalism. The media will occasionally directly come out and call Bush a liar, say the war is unjust or proclaim the deaths of brave soldiers to be in vain in editorials. But they also have a simple way to send this same message through reporting of the “news” under the guise that they are impartial presenters of fact – they find people who espouse those views and give them airtime. Usually it takes the form of the “person on the street” interviews, as if the selection of people sought to be interviewed is completely random and representative of the public in general. The Sheehan story is an extreme example of this.

A sample of one can never be representative of the views of the population as a whole. You don’t have to be a statistics major to figure that out. However, it can be representative of the views of those doing the sampling.

This is priceless. Angry In the Great White North (hereinafter and for all time referred to as “Angry” – his name is way too long) comes to the defence of Charles Krauthammer (H/T Michelle Malkin). Apparently Larry Johnson, the self described terrorism expert, thought that referring to Krauthammer as “wheelchair bound” in a hit piece would somehow add to his argument. While I suggest you read the post, scroll down and check out the comment from “Nevel72”. He cites an article written by Johnson in the Summer just prior to the 9/11 attacks, wherein Johnson essentially argues that the threat of Islamic terrorism against the U.S. is a myth and that “Americans have little to fear”.

It’s hard to imagine any “expert” being more wrong about the subject matter that they profess to have superior knowlege of than Mr. Johnson. If I were him, I’d have a hard time showing my face in the local coffee shop, let alone trying to take on a heavyweight like Krauthammer.

It is clear that there are two distinct perspectives on the “cause” of the recent U.K. bombings. The one view, thankfully one that appears to be held by most responsible leaders, is that this is part of the larger war that militant Islam has been waging against the West for over a decade now. The terrorists wage a war of terror because they wish to destroy our way of life and impose taliban style rule, at least throughout the Middle East, much of Asia, and perhaps now even Europe.

The other view, which most certainly will lead to defeat if adopted by our world leaders, is one premised on the terrorists really being victims of Western policies. They are merely responding to our transgressions. It’s really our fault. We should leave them alone and they won’t continue to attack. In the old days this policy used to be called appeasement – do as they wish, and hopefully they won’t take their radical agenda too far. We saw the results of this in the 1930’s. It’s easy to look back at the isolationists and pro-appeasement lobby of the 1930’s and label them as an ignorant minority, but then, as now, the tendancy towards appeasement is a powerful one, shared by many in society.

What exists today that we did not see in the 1930’s are the faux hawks that are really appeasers. Sheep in wolves’ clothing. They won’t come out and directly say that the U.S. is to blame. Instead they’ll proclaim outrage against the terrorists in one breath, while chastising the West’s policies in the next. They dance around directly justifying the terrorists actions because they know taking that position is repugnant, yet they take that position nonetheless, believing in the terrorists’ cause -make that their naive, ethnocentric interpretation of the terrorists’ cause.

Beware of the sheep in wolves’ clothing.

With the rise of the blogs and the corresponding decrease in newspaper readership and falling ratings of the Big Three network news, one would have thought that old media would have done something about the massive void being filled by this new category of competition. The void, of course, is the non-leftist perspective – the context, background, expert opinions, and basic facts that are omitted from the “news” on a daily basis because it doesn’t fit in with the world view from the left. Wouldn’t market forces require old media to get back to its proper role in society – informing, leaving that persuading and advocating stuff to the political parties? Apparently it seems that thirty years in the comfy liberal coccoon has rusted up the rudder of the SS Old Media. Recoginizing the iceberg on the horizon is one thing, but steering to avoid it has proven to be too much of a task.

Examples of the continuing liberal hegenomy in the media are too numerous to mention on this post. But just take the example of the reporting of Afghanistan. Lorie’s post at PoliPundit which links to a great article in the NY Post says it all. It doesn’t seem to matter if the facts, context and history of a story say something is white, for old media to call it black anyway.

Howard Dean recently said that “America is safer when Democrats are in the White House, than when Republicans are in the White House…”

Howard Dean is right. When viewed through the leftist prism where force is never justified, that is. If you believe that U.N. diplomacy is the answer to all of America’s security concerns such that military engagements are obsolete, that France, Germany and Russia will look out for U.S. securty concerns and not act in their own self interest, that uncountered threats don’t build over time, that if we can just understand the motives of those who hate America and effectively “change our ways” so they no longer want to destroy us, then Dean is right. If you think all of the above things are true then Amerca is safer under Democrats. When military forces are used, Americans get killed. Democrats (contemporary ones, not the Democrats of the last century) simply won’t put US soldiers in harms way. Elect a Democrat, and Americans won’t get killed. Seems simple enough.
Hat tip Polipundit

I know it’s been awhile since I’ve posted. (A la Anchoress, I’ll put this posting in the “it’s all about me, me, me” category). We’ve just started our family vacation, I woke up at an ungodly hour (something I tend to do in hotels for some reason) so I’ve scampered outside with my laptop to do some blogging. Is wireless cool or what? Just got this fancy shmancy new laptop and I’m amazed that you can get connected pretty much anywhere these days. Ahhhh precious laptop, giver of serenity, conveyer of information, like a life raft in an ideologically hostile ocean………sorry where was I, drifted off into computing bliss for a second there.

Life’s been a little crazy for the Jeff1999 household. Mrs. 1999 is in her sixth month of pregnancy….so well…..you know…..let’s just say I’ve got my Mr. Attentive hat on pretty much all the time now, which means blogging is going to be a little lighter for awhile. Being the organized family that we are we’ve also just realized that we need to accomodate the baby and so we’ve bought a new house. Again, being the organized family that we are, we’ve apparantly just realized that we now need to sell our house. It’s a good housing market where we live, but it’s kind of scary owning two houses when you’re nowhere near stinking rich.

I find myself selling our house’s great features to almost everyone I talk to as if they are a potetential buyer:

grocery clerk: would you like that double bagged sir?

Jeff: Sure. We’ll need plenty of bags, we’re moving……..yup it’s going to be hard giving up that house…..sure is a beauty….. we’re moving cuz we need more space, not because there’s anything wrong with it….(nervous laughter) say, are you in the market…..

grocery clerk: I’m only sixteen years old sir.

Jeff: Of course, of course ……………………………… do your parent’s like where they’re living?

So Blair wins a third consecutive majority government, and of course the Guardian’s Robin Cook’s recommendation is for Blair to immediately step down.

The Guardian’s pre-election bias didn’t effect the outcome (well who knows if it would have been a landslide without a hostile media telling UK voters that Blair is a liar), so now they are simply advocating that the electorate’s will be ignored.

Cook’s take is that the public really voted for the Labour party and not for Blair. Apparently it would be more democratic to run with one candidate, take the win, and then substitute the leader with someone who we can be absolutely certain the public did not vote for.

Well that makes sense.

Sorry that blogging’s light….stop. It’s absolutely nuts up here in Canada…..stop. Send supplies…..and a few conservative bloggers….stop.