The hype is on to counteract Michael Moore's devastating new movie. But the reality is hard to argue when you can graph the real data.

In a most recent article Paul Krugman laid out the real sticky point of Milton Friedman economics and how libertarian ideology can lead directly to the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans, not because some devious evil theocrat wanted to punish America for its freedom, but because of a cascade of ordinary corners of safety were cut, not even necessarily in excess greed, but just to keep up with everyone else and not be unduly burdened.

The economic case for having the government enforce rules on food safety seems overwhelming. Consumers have no way of knowing whether the food they eat is contaminated, and in this case what you don’t know can hurt or even kill you. But there are some people who refuse to accept that case, because it’s ideologically inconvenient.

If government regulation in the market has any place at all then the question quickly goes from "if it should exist at all" to "in what areas is it beneficial to humanity", and suddenly Socialism has a face that even a conservative must love unless he has only larceny for a heart.

It is very interesting following Adam Curtis down his research rabbit hole as each new series looks at the onion layer of philosophy below the layer of his previous work, as you can almost hear the conversations as the Gang Of Pirates tries to explain the underlying philosophy beneath the Philosophy he has just explained in the previous film.

In trying to scrupulously explain the right by allowing the actual leadership make their points, he gets ever closer to explaining the different universes that both left and right inhabit and trying to find a place that men of good will can agree and come together, and at the same time point out how the very existence of Ideology has blinded the Partisans to their errors, and created a much worse reality than was wanted or desired by any side. (I take issue with him here, as I think some from Stalin to Cheney are/were well aware of the weaknesses of their respective ideologies, but have used them to carve out a place for themselves, to the disaster of their civilizations).

I have suspected for sometime that Dr Bob's RWA's were more than a statistical anomaly, and perhaps also a pathology not a lot different from depression or schizophrenia, containing a wide range of severity and a somewhat nebulous array of symptoms that, taken together, still have clinical meaning.

Missing from this Idea was specific causes and what mechanics might be involved. I suspected trauma as a place to start, as I had seen Religious cults, and groups that behave as cults zero in on PTSD like sharks smelling blood. What I had missed was the possibility that the biggest pool of recruits was abused, and neglected children.

Wouldn't you know that if Bush makes a speech that sounds remotely like he wants to do something good, you have to know that there is a massive corruption scam that is really behind it.

So when Bush announces that we need to put up billions of dollars to help alleviate crushing third world debt, especially in Africa, it is not going to be Africans who are going to benifit.

One's first thought is that the banks who have loaned money will get the taxes, and that is indeed a part of it, but only the beginning. The American Taxpayers pay the interest to the bank so the African countries can pay off just the principal. But that is not what happens.

A new television network has just been launched! Ho Hum you say? and only time will tell if you are right. They are very earnest, they want to have real television news that is not beholden to anyone but its viewers.

As a part of their launch they have interviews from across the old policy spectrum, including staunch Conservatives, with the only rule being actual verifyable stuff, and a lot of discussion about what is news and how can you tell, and at the last a statement as to why these people are supporting this effort.

The liberals are fairly predictable, if only because actual verifyable information has been something they have long favored, and complained about not finding. The Conservatives however have had to look at information that was supposed to make them feel good, and see issues that flew in the face of their desires and expectations, and decide that real conservative values mean to stand with reality.

If you want to tell a tale, everyone has known for some time that a simple text blog is kind of like getting the hottest gaming computer and using it to play solitaire card games. Likewise most news organizations post articles on their websites laid out pretty much like they would in the magazine.

If the website is for a television station then they often put up their content pretty much as it would be played in normal programming. Again with not a lot of thought beyond their comfortable "old Media" paradigm.

Apparently Somebody over at LATimes decided that it would be a good thing to have somebody think out how a website could be used to create user interactive information of video, still photos, and active graphs that change as you mouse over them. Still conceptually one directional information, which is very "Old Media" of them but a very flashy (pun intended and not) presentation none the less, and giving it much more impact than a simple text story.

What would happened if every sort of blogger, Right wing, Left wing, just family, Teenagers keeping in touch, folks sharing recipes, even ISP's and Hosting folk like Blogger, MySpace, Typepad, and the rest, were suddenly faced with $300,000 fines and lifetime ruin, based on the opinion of some wandering web surfing nut with a Foley complex? Even winning such a fight would be a disaster of never getting your dignity back, to say nothing of lawyer bills.

The lefty blogs of course would go nuts and the techie blogs recognize the danger but the winger trolls are all in a yawn about it, and the recipe folk prolly haven't seen the recipe yet.

The Attorney General of the United States has leaked information that the government has had for 200 years, a secret high technology program far above and beyond any technology that the rest of the world was aware of.

Back in the days when the likes of your average Conservative of today, like Rush, Bill O, or Fallwell, were considered way out weird nuts by the vast majority of Americans, I heard their predecessor on my car radio while driving through Wacko Texas (not just the town of Waco, but the whole broad outback of ignorance that was rarer in that time then now).

In any case his name was Billy Joe Vargas and "if you just sent him some money he would send you absolute galdarn proof that the CIA and the Air Force had been in cahoots since 1870, Yes thats right 1870, I know you can't believe it but

In wandering about the Net looking for something else I ran into Robert W. Fuller, Patient Revolution: Human Rights Past and Future which is an hour long video about his self named "Dignitarian" ideology. His elite background shows, and seems to me to be a major difference I have with him. But by talking from the position of the management, and his academic credentials he does provide a place and perspective that can allow managers to create a more humane and profitable system.

Of particular interest to me is the way he, as I have, actively differentiates what he is talking about from the Communist/Socialist unnecessary monopolies that are not different from the same thing that is "privately" held. He talks about managers treating others with dignity because it is ultimately in the manager's self interest, while my focus is to have a method to make sure that he does so, because few people can see their real self interest.

Allan Wolfe has an (old- May 2004) discussion I have just come across linking by personal connection where Leo Strauss got some of his thinking, and why liberals have trouble making good things happen.

Liberals think of politics as a means; conservatives as an end. Politics, for liberals, stops at the water's edge; for conservatives, politics never stops. Liberals think of conservatives as potential future allies; conservatives treat liberals as unworthy of recognition. Liberals believe that policies ought to be judged against an independent ideal such as human welfare or the greatest good for the greatest number; conservatives evaluate policies by whether they advance their conservative causes. Liberals instinctively want to dampen passions; conservatives are bent on inflaming them. Liberals think there is a third way between liberalism and conservatism; conservatives believe that anyone who is not a conservative is a liberal. Liberals want to put boundaries on the political by claiming that individuals have certain rights that no government can take away; conservatives argue that in cases of emergency -- conservatives always find cases of emergency -- the reach and capacity of the state cannot be challenged.