Donations:
Weblogs of Note:
Straight News:
Commentary:
Liberty Related Sites:
Movies, Comics and Other Entertainment:
As I visited polling stations, what struck me most was the number of elderly women who voted, many covered from head to toe in black burka-like robes. Many of them illiterate, they would check the picture of the candidate they wanted to vote for and then stuff the ballot in the box — voting less for a politician than for their own empowerment. One appeared to have her grandchildren with her. As she voted, her grandson, who looked about age 10 and wore a soccer outfit, tried to explain to his little sisters what a voting booth was. Thus are seeds of democracy planted.As a libertarian in the curmudgeon tradition, I admit that I am a bit skeptical about democracy. But this passge made me realize what a liberating thing it is to have the franchise and to have the ability to participate in the polity. Perhaps libertarians, in their zeal for individual liberty, forget what a powerful force for liberty in the culture that democracy can be. This bears thinking about...This is the first election ever in the Arab gulf region where women were allowed to run and vote, and their husbands have quickly discovered what that means. The king's wife, Sheika Sabika — in an unprecedented move in this conservative region — campaigned publicly for women to go out and vote. She visited a Shiite Muslim community center and an elderly woman stood up to say: "Thank you. [Because we can now vote,] for the first time our husbands are asking us what we think and are interested in what we have to say."
Of course, the real question is, how long before the peacenik crowd starts complaining about the "collateral damage" and condemn the Russian action on the grounds that some innocent people died?
Paul Wellstone was a good guy. His friend Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, spoke at some length this afternoon about his "caring and belief." When tough old Pat Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, spoke of Wellstone this afternoon on CNN, he began to weep. And when Pete Domenici, tough old Republican of New Mexico, followed Mr. Leahy on CNN, he too began to weep, and had to beg off the interview.No arguments here.Senators ain't sissies. They can be one cold crew. But Wellstone touched them in a way that was special, and that I think had something to do with democracy, and those who grace it.
It's sad to lose a good man. Good for America for raising him; good for Minnesota for raising him to the Senate; good for Wellstone for being motivated by belief and the desire to make our country better.
As for "intelligence sources," America's most prominent is CIA Director George Tenet. A recent letter in his name to Congress laid out the following evidence, which we reprint at length since everyone else seems to have ignored it:Just go read the rest of it, already."*Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including those of high rank.
"*We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.
"*Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
"*Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
"*We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda's leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
"*Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al Qaeda, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."
Presumably Mr. Tenet wasn't making all of this up, and presumably his claims are based on the work of his own "sources" in the U.S. intelligence community.
House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) countered that the numbers represented "an incredible turnaround, probably the most stunning change in figures we've ever seen." In an interview, Gephardt indicated Democrats would use the new figures as evidence of broader economic troubles as they campaign for the Nov. 5 midterm elections.Right, because I forgot about how the Republican Congress refused to pass Gephardt's bold legislation in Congress consisting of a comprehensive economic plan and "tough love" cuts of Federal programs in order to curtail spending and prevent deficits. Bloody idiots. I hate it when people take credit for what they didn't do, and I hate it when people are forced to take the blame for problems that were not in their power to control.
UPDATE: What do I mean by "there never was a budget surplus?" If you look at Federal taxes v. Federal spending, without counting Social Security, there has always been a deficit. It's just that, since 1997, the deficit was small enough, and the Social Security surplus (SS taxes v. SS payouts) was large enough to cover the difference. This year, that isn't true. But it's disingenuous to call that a surplus.
Of course, the particularly stupid aspect of this, from the Chechnyan independence point of view, is that support for war with Chechnya has been steadily declining in the past couple of years. It's possible that, given another year or two of defensive fighting, Russia may have come to the table to talk terms. But not now. In many ways this is reminiscient of the Palestinian plight--by using terroist tactics and threatening civilians, the Chechens have substantially harmed their case with the Russian population.
In fact, the PLO, IRA and the Chechens are textbook examples of how not to run an independence movement. The lessons to be learned by all would be secessiionists from their actions are: don't target civilians, show yourself worthy of running a seperate state, and try to gain the sympathy of majority of the population of the country you're seceding from.
Does anybody doubt that if the PLO had been a passive resistance movement, that the Palestinians wouldn't have gotten a country of their own years ago? Does anybody doubt that peace in Northern Ireland would have come much sooner if the IRA had focused more time on exposing British treatment of the Irish rather than bombing civilians?
A lot of this, of course, has to do with the nature of the secessionist organizations. Both the PLO and the Chechens are islamofascist, and the IRA is Marxist. Does anybody doubt that the same persons who wish to build a dictatorial state would have no compunctions about their means to achieve them? By contrast, secession movements based on democratic principles are generally more successful. Not that they always win, but they generally have had a better chance of success with less bloodshed than those independence movements consisting of would-be thugocrats.
This approach has several advantages. First, since the Judiciary Committee is simply making a recommendation, rather than voting on whether a nominee should face a full vote of the Senate, it's more likely that Senators on the Committee would feel freer to break ranks with their Party's and truly look at the merits of a particular judge. Also, requiring a full vote of the Senate of each nominee eliminates difficult situations where the Judiciary Committee blocks the Senate from voting on nominees that would probably pass a full vote of the Senate. Finally, it will end the cycle of Democrats blocking the nomination of Republican nominees and vice-versa, thus de-politicizing the judicial nomination process and ensuring that vacancies on the bench get filled.
Credibility is a nation's greatest asset in international affairs. It is the hardest to earn and the most difficult to maintain, but once possessed it makes it possible to compel changes in behavior. Credibility exists only in the eye of the beholder.Absolutely right. Let's learn from our mistakes, shall we?The Clinton administration's lack of credibility in dealing with North Korea emboldened the regime to defy America. The Bush administration's credible threat of force against Iraq is rallying American and international opinion in our favor, and has put Baghdad on notice. Pyongyang is watching.
The dangers posed by Iraq and North Korea are different, but as any surviving member of the Taliban will attest -- and as Saddam Hussein may soon learn -- in this new era, rogue regimes that openly defy and gravely threaten the United States put themselves in peril when they doubt our resolve to end challenges to our security. If we had met the North Korean nuclear challenge with resolve rather than accommodation a decade ago, we would be more secure now. North Korea teaches us that if we sleep in the face of the Iraq threat today, we may be sleepless tomorrow.
Of course, for those choices to make any sense, one must first accept that news and fact are synonymous, a premise not so easily embraced by a population that has abandoned mainstream news organizations for alternative forms of personal journalism like Weblogs.There's no question that some people find LGF offensive. But it's not because of any racist comments that Charles makes. It's not because he's writing vehement rhetoric against the entire relgion of Islam. They find it offensive because he's upsetting their worldview by presenting news articles that challenge their view of the world. They find it offensive because Charles demonstrates, with evidence, that Islamofascism is real, and that it's more widespread than we'd like to think. To ask the question, "Is this a hate site?" does make the implication that it is, facts regardless. I don't question the motives of Weblog Central--I'm sure that this implication wasn't intended. But it is a fact of our times that allegations of racism are often used to undermine political opponents, and the allegations shouldn't be raised without good reason. Just because people say they're offended or that someone is a racist simply isn't enough. The damage to someone's reputation that can result is too great to bandy about the question irresponsibly. The current description of the site on MSNBC, which describes LGF as "controversial," is much more apporpriate. It recognizes that a good deal of people take issue with Charles positions, which is true, but doesn't ride to the level implying racism.
So while it may have been true that the factual nature of Johnson’s posts were one of the more common responses, not everyone recognized that as the “news” option in the question.
A few respondents objected to my notation in Friday’s post that some may find LGF offensive or racist. The reason I wrote that was because it’s true. Some HAVE found it to be so and wrote in to say so. The number of letters of support of LGF’s inclusion on the list were vastly greater than those opposed, but I can’t simply deny the existence of opposition.
But gasoline isn't the only product of oil. So are plastics. And lubricants. And medicines. Have you ever stopped to think about just how much of your life is dependent on plastic? (insert obvious credit card debt joke here). It's the essential material of pacemakers and life support systems. It's used in building materials, computer components, grocery bags, picture frames, cell phones, and damn near anything else you can imagine.
But where's the outcry about our "over-dependence on plastic?" It doesn't exist because, well, it's too late to turn back now. Our society is completely dependent on plastics. Which means that it depends on oil. No matter how many solar-powered SUV's people build or how many light rail systems unnecessarily clutter communities that don't need them.
Why do I make this point? Because the argument against our "dependence on oil" isn't an attack on the use of oil. It's an attack on a particular use of oil. In automobiles. Because, of course, fewer cars mean more people living in cities and fewer out in the "open spaces." Fewer cars mean greater dependence on public transportation. In short, fewer cars means that America has to become less like the Midwest, with it's long roads, wide open spaces, and decentralized "sprawl" and more like the big metro areas of the East Coast, with its crowded cities, uber-urban planning, and oh-so-reliable and efficient public transportation systems.
Of course, this is not to say that attacking our dependence on oil is a subtle plot to turn us all into New Yorkers. There's no subtle conspiracy at work, here, or anything. It's just something that's been buzzing around in my head. Attacks on the automobile, attacks on urban sprawl, and attacks on fewer downtown areas tend to be made by more liberal thinkers. And I wonder how much of their distaste for Midwest style decentralized living comes from their distaste not only for the lifestyle itself, but the fact that residents of such areas tend to be more conservative than city dwellers? Thoughts anyone?
Washington Post columnist David S. Broder condemns legislative gridlock, on average, several times a year. Pressing the worry lines from his face, Broder shouts fie on the do-nothing Congress and demands an end to partisan bickering. Why can't we all just get along, he asks, break up the logjam on Capitol Hill, and pass some major bills?I, too, am often surprsed at the number of people who complain that Congress isn't doing enough, because I am often complaining that Congress is doing way too much.
Broder's complaint is as subtle as a pair of nunchucks upside the head. In his world, blocking legislation is partisan and awful while passing legislation—no matter how ill-conceived—is nonpartisan and wonderful. Broder imagines the House and Senate as legislative factories that should be judged by the same metrics the Soviets would apply to a steel mill: Never mind the quality or whether or not there's a demand. How much did it produce last year? Not much? Then, let's shake up management!
This, of course, is not to say that all partisanship bickering in Congress is good. But for the most part it is. It's only bad when it's done for pointless purposes--because they want to delay a vote to make a President look bad, etc, etc. But when bills are being held up because of honest disagreement over whether the law, or provisions within, are a good idea, umm, that's not gridlock, kids. That's they way the legislature is supposed to work...
This site is the focus of considerable controversy for its focus (and particularly the focus of the constituents in its comments section) on Islamic culture and dogma as the source of Islamic terror. As a popular, active, and well presented site, it is worth checking out, but some may find its content hateful or even racist.I guess you could find the content hateful or racist--if you're a fucking idiot. I'd encourage you, if you haven't already, to email MSNBC's Best of Blogs editor and point out the outrageousness of this smear campaign. I just sent him an email myself, which reads as follows:
Sir:What are you standing around for? Go write an email of support!I am writing this to express my outrage over your characterization of the Little Green Footballs website as one that some may find hateful or offensive. The implication of your comment being that Mr. Johnson is a racist or anti-Muslim. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have been reading LGF for well over a year, and am continually impressed with the depth of Mr. Johnson's research and the quality of his commentary. To be sure, I do not always agree with him--but then, there's nobody that I always agree with.
However, Mr. Johnson's ire is not directed towards Islam as a whole nor Arabs, but rather the strain of Muslim extremism that we currently find ourselves at war with. To be sure, his opinions are not popular in some circles. But there is no constitutional right to not be offended, and Mr. Johnson has consistently backed his viewpoints with clear logic and evidence from the current news to support his views.
It is true that there are small minded, intolerant people expressing their ignorant opinions on the web today. And right-minded people should rightly condemn them. However, Mr. Johnson and his site are not examples of such hate. In fact, he has become the victim of it. His words are being distorted and smeared by people who disagree with him, but are unwilling, or perhaps unable, to engage him in rational discourse.
I would urge you to remove your erroneous qualification of LGF on Weblog central. This characterization of Mr. Johnson is unjust and is an example of the very intolerance that his critics wrongly charge him with.
Sincerely,
Alex Knapp
Writer of the Heretical Ideas weblog.
http://www.hereticalideas.com
Another question that comes to my mind, is that with this announcement, is it really wise to continue building roads and rail lines between North and South Korea? Obviously, the lack of roads has no effect on a missile bound nuke, but it can cause problems for an invading army.
And, of course, the final question is: what the hell are we gonna do about it? If N. Korea does have nukes, it seems to me that our options are extremely limited, but if they don't, fast action might prevent it. But what's the apporpriate action? Coercive inspections? Surgical strikes, what? Obviously, agreements with N. Korea aren't worth the paper they're printed on, so I'm not sure I see the utility in a round of fruitless negotioations unless we have clearly in mind what we want and don't budge an inch.
His other major argument relies on arguments made by some in the intelligence community that disagree about the level of threat Iraq poses to the United States.
If we let ourselves be painted as rejecting any action against any threat under any circumstance, we lose. The argument has to be that this threat doesn't rise to the level of demanding a military response. The question we should be raising for all the fencesitters is: whose assessment of a foreign threat do you find more trustworthy, the CIA's or that of a bunch of wannabe generals at National Review? We need to have this fight on their terms, because on their terms, they lose.The problem is that the CIA is not a monolith. Nor is it our only source of intelligence. Yeah, some people in the CIA have publicly disagreed witht the Bush Administration. But they have to win their argument on the merits. Just running around saying "I'm from the CIA!" doesn't mean you automatically win the argument.