Very good point. A friend of mine, raised a Democrat, and educated by the usual suspects, had quite a difficult time of it after 9/11. I could provide him some relief, but Roger’s site was exactly as you put it: a “psychological bulwark.” The anonymity and thus equality of the internet, when at its best, for its beyond all the silly categories that hem us in, provides a type of freedom and support that can be very beneficial and intellectually productive.

I spent 1968-1972 in a liberal eastern college — Dartmouth as a matter of fact. I got through those years by keeping my head down and my opinions largely to myself (and, in practical terms, getting lucky in the draft lottery). The constant exposure to a largely monolithic point of view on the part of everyone around you — with no resource to provide you a balancing perspective — has its own wearing and modifying effect on the formation of one’s own opinions, as well as inhibiting the expression of those dissident opinions one may have left after the modifying influence has done its work. I now realize this in retrospect, particularly in view of the present contrasting situation.

I find the Internet to be a huge difference between then and now. Part of it is no doubt the increased confidence that comes with age. But just reading the intelligent commentary of others with whom I agree gives me more confidence in airing my own views in the workplace and other public venues, and reassures me that my opinions are not some oddball lunacy.

Concerning the public’s understanding of Iraq without the existence of the internet, has the internet really made much of a difference? I submit that for the majority of the population of the West, it is as though we are back in the ’70′s. Witness Dan Rather. Witness the “what-oil-for-food-scandal?” NYT. The internet is only making a difference for a small fraction, and only half of that fraction at that.

Perhaps the internet sways only a “small fraction”, but that fraction, like any swing vote constituency, is crucial to the outcome of a close election. Rick B may never be convinced, but I still maintain that the evidence we have suggests that it was pro-Iraq war, national security Democrats crossing over and voting for Bush who made the difference last November. I would also submit that these centrist and liberal hawks make up a disproportionate share of the internet and blogosphere audience, which overlaps pretty neatly with the nat-security/neo-neocon demographic: tech-savvy, older, predominantly male and well-educated.

Another way in which the internet’s political impact was and is disproportionate to the size of the audience: the availability of rival memes has helped greatly to undercut the credibility of Rather, the NYT etc., which today is down around 20%, ie used-car salesmen range.

People gathering around office coolers or in barbershops or beauty salons or ballfields will be exposed to those alternate memes and views by others who now, thanks to bloggers and the internet, have solid evidence with which to demolish the c-BS that in an earlier day would have gone unchallenged. It’s primarily the internet and the rival voices and viewpoints it enables that has caused the public’s trust in the MSM to fall from ca 45% trusting them in 1995 to s.t. like 20% trusting them today. Note that conservatives’ trust of the MSM fell before 1995; it’s non-conservatives whose trust level has fallen most sharply since the availability of web browsers.

Patton’s execution of the 90-degree wheel to counterattack in the Ardennes was indeed one of the greatest operational maneuvers in the annals of modern warfare. However, there is more behind the story then most people know.

Third Army planning for this operation began in November upon the receipt of a series of warning messages about a possible German counter-attack in the Ardennes. Allied intelligence correctly predicted the attack but the Germans postponed “Wacht An Rhein” three times before December 16th. By the third warning Allied commanders discounted the intelligence as a cry of wolf. All that is except 3rd Army. Patton had his G-3 staff develop a just in case contingency plan to meet the possibility of a German surprise attack. When the attack came he had a fully developed “O-Plan” on the shelf. What made Patton a great Commander was ability to foresee, plan and execute operations against threats that other commanders could not imagine. He had an extraordinary sense of what we call today situational awareness.

I take a backseat to no one in my admiration of Gen. Patton. You have to go back to Hannibal to find a winter march that was the equal of his relief of Bastogne.

While I’ll grant you it was inevitable we would win (though it was thanks in large part to the Soviet Union’s unimaginable sacrifices), there were numerous times when things looked quite awful, even dire. (Remember “Black ’44″?) The point of my post was to explore why, in the face of such adversity, did our popular press never forget which side they were on, and who the bad guys were.

Going back and reading old news accounts, I am constantly struck by how upbeat (sanitized of course) and patriotic the reporting was. If A.J. Liebling and Bill Maudlin read some of the things coming out of Iraq today, they’d assume the writers were working for the enemy.

http://vietpundit.blogspot.com/2005/04/changing-mind.html

Fresh Air ó That’s a major oversimplification. Once the Japanese ran off the edge of their opening strategy in 1942. they never held the initiative again. As for the Germans, it was Rommel who said the Americans learned faster than any other opponent he ever faced. He also said, “War is chaos, and the Americans practice chaos to a high degree,” which ties in to another senior German general’s (Manteuful? von Rundstedt?) sour comment that “it is useless to study American tactical manuals, because they don’t.” And nothing the Germans ever pulled off matched Patton’s turning the entire Third Army 90 degrees in less than 24 hours to relieve Bastogne.