December 06, 2006

More lies to help the other side...(Or, Sweden down the Memory Hole)

From PowerLine:

The top headline on Yahoo News reads: "Gates Says U.S. Losing Iraq War." Here is the screen shot; click to enlarge:

Only that's not what Gates said. The Associated Press story that Yahoo News links to carries the milder headline, "Gates says U.S. is not winning Iraq war." And if you read the story, you find that what Gates actually said is that "he believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, 'at this point.'"

The "not winning" theme is likely to dominate news coverage; the New York Times headlines, "At Hearing, Gates Says U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq." Here, too, if you keep reading you find that Gates said "the United States is not losing the war either."...

Question: does the Old media want us to lose the Iraq Campaign?

Short answer: Yes. But they imagine losing will be like losing was in Vietnam. That is, a big moment of triumph for Democrats and for the NYT, with all those millions who get murdered and imprisoned safely off-stage, where the American people can't see them.

(Bear with me my brethren for covering ground I've been over before, but I'm right in the middle of this nootziness. I'm confronted with it every day. I'm in a city where 83% of the population thought that John Kerry—poster boy of 70's fossilization—was a good choice for President! I've got to vent a bit.)

To the Left, every war is Vietnam. And I'm not talking about a metaphor or something. More like a dementia. They really believe it. Remember how two of the most splendid lightning-victories in our history—the overthrow of the Taliban and the 3-week blitzkrieg through Iraq—were both labeled as quagmires! Within mere days!

It's lunacy, and also part of a larger lunacy—the derangement involved in trying to preserve a world-view that gelled around 1973. Preserve it even though the world has in fact changed drastically, and that world-view no longer corresponds with reality. Mark Steyn caught the outlook perfectly, as the idea that everything is going to become like Sweden. Younger people may find this hard to grasp, but trust me, I was there. It was a commonplace in the 60's and 70's that the Swedes, and other Euro-socialists, had figured it all out, and it was only a matter of time before us primitivo Americans would shed our coarse old ideas and move Swedenwards, as "progressive" types already had.

And we humans always want to display our inner selves in our outward appearance. Back then the emblem was to drive a Volvo or a Saab (plus guilt-free sex, wearing clogs and eating Blix).

But funny thing, the Symbolic Volvo has been traded in for a symbolic Prius. Yet the change has not been publicly remarked upon, at least not that I've heard. No Leftist admits to dumping Sweden down the Memory Hole, sort of like the memory of an old girl-friend from ones college days. Sweden has obviously failed as a model to emulate, but nobody's talking about it. That has to be extracting a psychological toll. It is massive denial.

What does Jane Liberal think, as she drives around in the tired rusty Volvo station wagon she can't afford to trade in for a Prius? I can't even imagine what she thinks, I doubt it's thinking at all. Just crazy anger, and BUSH is to blame!

Posted by John Weidner at December 6, 2006 10:06 AM
Comments

Somewhat apropos of this post, and the last one too, I expect:


"The Croly Ghost--Exorcising the specter haunting American politics"

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30464.html

Yeah, it also ties into my rants about "political Taylorism", John, but I hope it will illuminate just why your neighbors are so enthralled with "progressivism".

Posted by: Hale Adams at December 6, 2006 02:07 PM

it was only a matter of time before us primitivo Americans would shed our coarse old ideas and move Swedenwards

"Swedenwards" - what a brilliant neologism...I laughed out loud!

Posted by: Ethan Hahn at December 6, 2006 02:23 PM

That's a good article, Hale.

Posted by: John Weidner at December 6, 2006 05:34 PM

Well... I still like the furniture. That's about it though.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 6, 2006 06:22 PM

The furniture's OK, but I grew up around a mishmash of late 19th and early 20th Century stuff, so "Swedish modern" looks... well... kinda sterile, or at least painfully unadorned.

I do have to admit that I love shopping at IKEA, though. They have the neatest odds and ends, and their shelving (IVAR, TUNHEM, and the rest) is suprisingly well-made and darn cheap.

Posted by: Hale Adams at December 6, 2006 06:34 PM

You all are, I'm sure, too young to remember when "Swedish Modern" furniture was...modern and refreshing. Actually, so am I. It was ordinary and ubiquitous by the time I became aware of it. By now they are probably making reproductions for those seeking a certain quaint 50's period look.

Posted by: John Weidner at December 6, 2006 06:44 PM

All I see in furniture stores is that ostentatious carved stuff and those huge, swollen sofas and beds -- giant mutant furniture for giant mutant homes. Maybe its different in California, but we still don't have an Ikea down here, and you have to hunt through thrift stores (or be rich as Bill Gates to be able to afford to buy anything in the handful of "modern" furniture stores) to get that retro Fifties look. Let's just say I've made good use of thrift stores.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 7, 2006 03:29 AM

PS: when I was a kid my parents still had their Fifties modern stuff. The first thing to go was the sofa -- a low-profile streamlined thing covered in nubby, cream-colored upholstery -- and it was replaced, I recall, with a hideous Seventies couch covered with chenille in a loud pattern of mint-green and white. It was comfy but boy was it ugly. They kept the huge marble (round slab of cream-gray marble on an iron base) coffee table until we sold the house when I was eighteen, and the hi-fi even though it was broken because you could put things on it because it was too heavy to move, and the dining room set, but the orange butterfly chair eventually succumbed to the ravages of teenage girls.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 7, 2006 03:33 AM
Weblog by John Weidner