Slashdot Mirror

There's a lot of economists that tend to believe Kerry would be awful for the economy. Six of them are nobel laureates. Have a look at this:

Economists against Kerrynomics

Besides, we were already in a recession when Clinton left office. The surplus was dissipating as the tech bubble burst and the market took a dive. The subsequent accounting scandals didn't help. 9/11 didn't help. I'm not saying Bush didn't overspend, he did. What I'm saying is, he's planning to spend less than Kerry. To be quite honest, that's the main issue I voted on.

The Electoral College is the most misunderstood feature of American polity. It should not be abolished--to the complete contrary, it should be strengthened; which is to say, it should be restored to how it was originally intended. The problem with the EC in most states is that each state is a "winner takes all" race: win the heavily-populated parts of California, and you can ignore the rest of the state. Win Houston and Dallas, and you can ignore the rest of Texas. Win New York City, and don't waste your time on upstate.

The framers of our country had a name for that behavior, specifically this one:

win the heavily-populated parts of California, and you can ignore the rest of the state.

It's called tyranny of the majority, and it is exactly why the electoral college is in place. The population in the cities would then rule the electoral vote and the rural areas would have no say in the election.

Currently Colorado has a bill to do just this on the ballot today. Unfortunatly if it passes Colorado will become irrelevant to the election and receive no attention from any major party.

If the proposal passes, as polls currently predict it will, the Centennial State will decrease in value and be worth exactly one electoral vote, making it the most unimportant electoral state in the union below even Wyoming and Washington D.C. It will be worth only one vote because in almost every election the Republican and Democrat will finish in a fairly tight race with one getting five electoral votes and the other party receiving four. Never again will Colorado be a battleground for presidential candidates.

For a more in depth explanation, see Gary Greggs article

Lets see now....

Since 9/11 Bin Laden has lost control of an entire country he used to OWN (Afghanistan) and which has flipped from a theocracy from the middle ages to having open, fair elections, he has had his money supply choked off and confiscated, had his training bases captured, lost large amounts of supplies, had his homes and compounds captured, given us huge amounts of intelligence data like Al Qaeda membership lists and plans, had thousands of his followers captured or killed, had to hide deep in the mountains to avoid being killed when he used to ride around in style, had numerous plans fail, had 75% of the known Al Qaeda leaders captured or killed (and no doubt replaced by less experienced and less well trained stand-ins), had his ability to contact and control his followers sharply limited, his pal Zarqawi is having a rough time, and yet, somehow, .... he thinks this is good? You think he wants more of this? If you are right, Bin Laden is apparently trying to discover a level of "victory" below pyrrhic victory. If he has much more success like that, he is a dead man, him and his followers. I don't know, but if you ask me, distributing video tapes is a poor substitute for a terrorist that wants to hand out bombs. He should change his name to Osamma Big Loser.

And you think George Bush has been really underperforming and that John Kerry is going to really get things in high gear, huh? Do tell. I'd love to hear it. I'm not sure what he could do before 2007. It takes a long time to train the special forces soldiers he will need to double special forces, and to raise the two new divisions. And that is after he gets them through Congress. Those are about the only concrete things that I have heard from John Kerry on the subject.

You know, it's interesting that people (even Republicans, i find) totally ignore Democratic cases of voter fraud. Republicans are not the only ones responsible for it -- in fact, they seem to me like they're less likely to do it than Democrats, on the whole.

Some of these are really biassed, but here are some examples:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article385 5.html

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004765.html (LOTS of articles about it here)

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007968.php

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250035/p osts (admittedly, Free Republic is a pretty bad place to go for potentially reputation-harming information about Democrats, but there it is anyway <_<)

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund20040913 0633.asp

Even The New York Times had a story about Democratic voter fraud.

This isn't to say that the Las Vegas thing and Chuck Hagel's involvement with that voting-machine company and the convenient Diebold incident in Georgia aren't troubling, because they are, very much. But so many people mysteriously forget that the other party isn't the only one that can be 'filthy'.

Well, crap. One of the best mags for news is giving into some Pollyanna-ish leanings that I'd thought them too mature and intelligent to cave into. Guantanamo a mistake that will haunt us for years? We lock up savages (savages based on their behavior, not their ethnicity, by the way) in one of the few places we can be sure they won't escape from, we give them vastly better food and medical care and religious freedom than they've ever seen, (and the few we've let out have returned to assaulting Western Civilization, which argues for MORE 'Tanamo, not LESS) and even The Economist wants to get all trial lawyer-y on us? Man.

Oh, and now they fall into the trap of considering morally equal an irretreviably corrupt and evil gang of thugs (The PLO) with the ONLY thriving representative democracy in The Middle East (Israel.) Name the one country in The Middle East where Arabs get to freely elect Arabs to a truly democratic parliament: yup, Israel. But a bunch of savages who see using children as suicide bombers against other children is Israel's moral equivalent? Give me a break.

The conservatives have become stronger in Iran? Oh, that explains the nationwide protests against the theocracy.

Finally, they're choosing a man who, while still in the U.S. Armed Forces, gave aid and comfort to the enemy by going to Paris and meeting with the North Vietnamese communists and Viet Cong terrorists to get the propoganda line he would follow in 1971 "testimony" before congress. Testimony he HAD to know was untrue.

Just shameful.

In a free society, different people will have different values and tolerance levels when it comes to speech, and government should not impose the will of some on all. When it comes to minding the kids, I'll take responsibility for teaching my own about the realities of this world, including the unsavory bits. You worry about yours. Let's not call in the government to do the job for us.

Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.

They may then only vote "provisionally" after signing an affidavit attesting to their legal voting status.

Mass challenges have never occurred in Florida. Indeed, says Mr Sancho, not one challenge has been made to a voter "in the 16 years I've been supervisor of elections."

Florida polls were open until 8 P.M. on election night. The problem was that Florida's ten heavily Republican western-panhandle counties are on Central, not Eastern, time. When polls closed at 8 P.M. EST in most of the state, the western-panhandle polling places were still open for another hour. Yet, at 8 Eastern, all the networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and NBC) incorrectly announced many times over the next hour that the polls were closed in the entire state. CBS national news made 18 direct statements that the polls had closed.

[...]

Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.

Also note the actual stats on outsourcing as provided via the National Review Online

If Kerry has enough time to go goose hunting and then use the Red Sox game as an excuse for being too lazy to carry the goose he supposedly shot, then he should at least be able to get the score correct.

We know that Kerry is getting all his sports wrong because we are informed about sports. How much do you think Kerry gets wrong about subjects you are not well informed about?

This is a classic case of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. You read a news story about your field of expertise and you notice that the story is completely innacurate, and then you read news stories in fields you don't know much about and assume that they are accurate.

The public knows when Kerry is bullshitting about the Red-Sox and other sports ("Lambert Field") because we know more about sports than Kerry. Slashdot knows when Kerry is bullshitting about technology (his support for the clipper chip, etc...) because we know more about technology than Kerry. The MSM is good at detecting when Kerry contradicts his own past statements (flip-flopping) because the MSM is proficient with Lexis-Nexis and other search tools. We don't detect when Kerry is bullshitting when he is talking about subjects that we don't know much about, like economics, military strategy, health-care, science, especially stem-cells (people will get up and walk), and everything else. You can check out any Kerry blog to see informed writers exposing all of his bullshit.

That's some pretty heavy artillery. Becker, Buchanan, Mundel, Friedman, Prescott ... if those guys agree on something, there's probably fire behind the smoke.

It's no surprise to hear that from Friedman, but some of the others on that list aren't so consistantly against government involvement in the economy. Here is the statement itself, with a list of the folks who signed it. There are a few names I recognize, but the noticable thing is these guys are from all over.

Quote of the letter itself, since it's likely to get /.ed.:

To whom it may concern:

We, the undersigned, strongly oppose key aspects of the economic agenda that John Kerry has offered in his bid for the U.S. presidency.

John Kerry says he "is committed to balancing the budget," but he has proposed additional spending that some analysts have estimated could cost as much as $226.1 billion annually ($2.261 trillion over ten years). He promises to "end corporate welfare as we know it" by implementing the "McCain-Kerry commission on corporate welfare," but he also proposes to provide additional "tax credits and subsidies to manufacturers" that meet his criteria.

Entitlement reform is the most important fiscal challenge facing the country, yet Kerry's approach has been to deny that any fix is needed. Indeed, Kerry criticized the recent Medicare expansion for not being large enough.

John Kerry has proposed tax increases that threaten to sap the economy's vitality and reduce long-term growth. Specifically, Kerry proposes to "restore the top two [income] tax rates to their levels under President Clinton." He would also, among other things, "restore the capital gains and dividend rates for families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton." Kerry's stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.

John Kerry boasts that his economic policies will lead to the creation of 10 million jobs in his first term as president. As Martin Sullivan wrote last April in the strictly non-partisan Tax Notes, no one "has presented any analysis to relate the Kerry plan to the creation of 1 million jobs, much less 10 million jobs." In fact, we believe Kerry's proposals would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.

John Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers. He has promised, if elected, to "review existing trade agreements." He vows not to "sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations [are] put in place." That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry's trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers alike.

All in all, John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.

Note : Affiliations are provided for identification purposes only. The organizations listed below should in no way be considered as endorsing the views of the individual.

shouldn't the link be to the actual letter; rather than an analysis by a former assistant of VP Cheney?

And who cares. A quick google search turned up a poll conducted by The Economist, where academics gave just the opposite opinion: low marks for Bush and high marks for Kerry.

Uh, no.

In 2003, Sen. John Kerry had $395,000 in taxable income

Capital gains are "taxable income". So were the royalties from his book. You don't ADD those to the 395K; those are PART OF the 395K.

Check his tax return for yourself if you don't believe me.

From The Kerry Spot:

BRADLEY SMITH: FEC COULD EVENTUALLY REGULATE BLOGS? [10/13 03:17 PM]

Cam Edwards of NRANews.com reports in, after interviewing Bradley Smith, Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Cam states:

"When I asked him if we're eventually looking at the FEC deciding what blogs run afoul of McCain/Feingold, he said that's the direction we're heading. Not just in determining what blogs might be in violation of McCain/Feingold, but determining what blogs would be able to claim a media exemption. Scary stuff."

Great. So the only way bloggers can keep their First Amendment rights is for a president to be elected who would tear up McCain-Feingold.

Somehow I suspect John Kerry won't go to the mattresses to prevent the FEC from regulating blogs. And George W. Bush already signed McCain-Feingold in the first place.

Bush is most certainly not a religious extremist. As has been repeatedly shown, Bush makes fewer references to God per year than Clinton. Meanwhile, Kerry gets a free pass on religious language in his campaign (there's a better article out there, but I cannot find it atm).

As for getting the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN, fine. It's an antiquated relic of the Second World War--we should leave that den of terrorists, dictators, megalomaniacs and loons.

And as for 'invading a country, based on lies,' can you demonstrate a single lie regarding our invasion of Iraq? Our invasion of Iraq was based quite soundly on international law, and had multiple reasons. The one which was sold the hardest--WMDs--now appears to have been incorrect, but please note that no-one disagreed at the time: the world agreed that Hussein had WMDs and WMD programmes; the world disagreed about what to do about them (we, the Brits and dozens of other states wanted to eliminate them; the French, Germans and the knee-jerk anti-American contingent wished to continue profiting therefrom).

Climate of Fear

Some Bush supporters say they fear for their property.

P.S. When did GWB "impede medical advances?"

He has done nothing to improve health care in the US. In fact he has made things worse by "shunning" the use of condoms to reduce the HIV transmission rate and replacing impartial scientists on government advisory boards with political hacks that say whatever he or the RNC wants them to say. He has also fought "tooth and nail" against requiring large companies to offer health insurance to their workers.

Simply put Bush sucks. Even taking away the stem cell research part he's still a menace to the public's health.

There was plenty of high value in the network revolution and still is. It's just that so many con men showed up, that when Greenspan put the screws down trying to make it a zero-sum game, the positive-sum players got eaten alive by the zero-sum players.

For clarity:

Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state.

Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it? The best I can do is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " And allowing a parent to send their child to a religious school with public subsidies neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of any religion.

And regardless, that doesn't apply to non-religious schools, which I willa ssume you address with your other points.

Private schools have less accountability

Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents. Private schools aren't successful because people HAVE to go there, they have to operate to the satisfaction of the parents. And under NCL has a host of accountability issues they have to satisfy in order to be eligible for NCLB vouchers.

Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools)

Not under NCLB. Good try. But even if they did, how does this prevent children frpom going to another school?

The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?)

The DC run is a trial, and if successful, will be spread out to the entire poulation. And your second assertion is false. Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math.

Say DC has 10,000 students at 12k is $120,000,000 1000 use funded vouchers of 7,500 to go ot private schools brinign the totals to 9,000 and $112,500,000. That's an average of $12,500 per students. So now we have a better funded school, with less 10% less crowding and 10% less demand for materials.

As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs

How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand. Many schools have tuition far below the voucher level, so even a raise in tuition would go unnoticed to the parents. With the increased demand at a fixed price, schools will fill that gap. Using very poor economic rhetoric does very little to show you've thought about this at all.

Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state. Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it? The best I can do is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " And allowing a parent to send their child to a religious school with public subsidies neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of any religion. And regardless, that doesn't apply to non-religious schools, which I willa ssume you address with your other points. Private schools have less accountability Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents. Private schools aren't successful because people HAVE to go there, they have to operate to the satisfaction of the parents. And under NCL has a host of accountability issues they have to satisfy in order to be eligible for NCLB vouchers. Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools) Not under NCLB. Good try. But even if they did, how does this prevent children frpom going to another school? The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?) The DC run is a trial, and if successful, will be spread out to the entire poulation. And your second assertion is false. Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math. Say DC has 10,000 students at 12K http://nationalreview.com/comment/lukas20031120085 8.asp/ is $120,000,000 1000 use funded vouchers of 7,500 to go ot private schools brinign the totals to 9,000 and $112,500,000. That's an average of $12,500 per students. So now we have a better funded school, with less 10% less crowding and 10% less demand for materials. As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand. Many schools have tuition far below the voucher level, so even a raise in tuition would go unnoticed to the parents. With the increased demand at a fixed price, schools will fill that gap. Using very poor economic rhetoric does very little to show you've thought about this at all.

Damn. Let me guess.... Kerry fan? With a little Moore influence? So, did you choose a glass with the red, or the green kool-aid? Well, if you paid for it, at least you got a full dose. Well, never mind.

If you take a few deep breaths, and read from a wider group of media outlets, you might still have a chance. There are now even antidotes for the F 911 fever swamp. Otherwise, I'm sorry.

And actually, impeachment is essentially an indictment, not an investigation. There actually has to be wrong-doing involved for impeachment to be considered. Anti-Bush fantasies aside, 9/11 didn't involve that. If it did, Clinton would be up for more trouble.

Ta ta, and good luck with all that.

"Who? Where? Please provide examples of a credible (ie. non-
"conspiracy theorist) source suggesting that Republicans might abuse
"a security hole.

Try the US Civil Rights Commission. (Their report on the Florida electoral fraud is available here: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm )

Maybe you should actually read the report.

It doesn't say a thing about Republicans abusing anything.

Try again.

While you're at it, you should also look at this.

We find out, for example, that

"the incontrovertible evidence shows that by statute the responsibility for the conduct of elections is in the hands of county supervisors, not the governor or secretary of state. County supervisors are independent officers answerable to county commissioners, not the governor or secretary of state. And in 24 of the 25 counties that had the highest ballot-spoilage rates, the county supervisor was a Democrat. (In the remaining county the supervisor was not a Republican, but an independent.)"

and

"The Justice Department did find violations of the Voting Rights Act in three counties. The infractions were that some poll workers had been hostile to Hispanic voters, bilingual assistance hadn't been provided to two Haitian voters, and some Hispanic voters had been denied bilingual assistance. None of the offending counties was controlled by Republicans."

also

"Whites were actually twice as likely as blacks to be erroneously placed on the list. In fact, an exhaustive study by the Miami Herald concluded that "the biggest problem with the felon list was not that it prevented eligible voters from casting ballots, but that it ended up allowing ineligible voters to cast a ballot."* According to the Palm Beach Post, more than 6,500 ineligible felons voted."

and

"Despite claims of rampant police intimidation and harassment, the only evidence of law-enforcement "misconduct" consisted of just two witnesses who described their perceptions of the actions of the Florida highway patrol. One of these witnesses testified that he thought it was "unusual" to see an empty patrol car parked outside a polling place."

OMG! An empty Florida highway patrol car! It's a Republican conspiracy!

See here for an example. People can and do oppose drug criminalization on conservative principles. I'd vote for decriminalizing marijuana, I'm less certain about the harder drugs. (No, I don't smoke. Or drink. Boring as hell am I...)

OK, I think this is an absolutely fair point. I mean, I don't think you're deluded or anything. But let's look at it a little more closely.

1. The quote isn't from a Corner author -- it's a submission. The submission is one of several Goldberg received and posted in response to an article he wrote.

2. I know it's tempting to say "Well, this is really Goldberg's view: He's just using the submission as cover." But there are a couple of problems with this. (A) You can easily check and see exactly what Goldberg does think: Just read his original article.* (B) Goldberg in particular has a history of posting a wide range of responses to his articles, not all of which he agrees with.

That is what seems to be the case here. After reading Goldberg's article, someone wrote in to say that the situation in Iraq was like fighting Indians (or Native Americans, if you prefer) in the 1800s. Someone else wrote in to say no, it isn't, etc. It doesn't mean Goldberg endorses either of these views, just that he finds them interesting.

3. Now, as to the quote itself: If I understand correctly, it probably offends you because you think by "these people" the writer meant all Iraqis, or all Arabs. But a closer reading suggests that "these people" refers to "the fanatics [who] will bring the war to us"; in other words, the insurgents and assorted thugs the U.S. and Iraqi forces are now fighting.

(I freely admit the e-mail is not a model of clarity, but remember, it was written by a "military guy," not a professional writer. I'm not a mind reader, but I think what I've written above is at least a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote.)

4. If this is the case, it certainly is a justifiable position -- i.e., that kidnapping civilians and cutting their heads off, and detonating car bombs in places where a lot of innocent Iraqi civilians are sure to be killed, are indeed "savage" acts.

5. SO, where does that leave us? If you didn't like the "tone" of that particular post, I'm inclined to agree with you. The Corner isn't as uniformly "high-level" in tone as the Volokh Conspiracy. But I maintain it's still fairly high in relation to the rest of the blogosphere.

Cheers,

- Alaska Jack

* I highly recommend actually doing this. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Here's a sampling of the best I've found:

Vodkapundit. Stephen Green's blog. Probably the best match for my own political views. Hawkish libertarian and consumer of fine ethanol-based beverages.

Instapundit Glenn Reynold's blog. Another decent match for my own viewpoint. Glenn's more of a linker than a commentator, but he's one of the best about linking to all sides of the blogosphere. When he does extended bits (such as at his MSNBC site or his TCS columns), he's quite cogent. Has a lot of outside interests (electronic music, space policy, nano-tech, constitutional law) that dovetail into my own and make his site more interesting than the politics-only blogs. Frequently mentions Slashdot and links to relevant discussions.

Reason's Hit and Run Another libertarian blog, run by Reason magazine. Much more in tune to the Libertarian Party than the above.

Virginia Postrel YALB (Yet Another Libertarian Blog). Postrel is a former editor of Reason. More of a social commentator these days and has written some fascinating books recently. Seems to have become ever-so-slightly more hawkish since 9/11.

The Corner National Review's blog. Conservative and largely Catholic, it's best feature is Jonah Goldberg (the token non-Catholic), who has a pleasantly snarky, pop-cultural laden view of current events. Least pleasant on the blog in John Derbyshire, who is quite the math geek but is way out there on the borderline-racist right (quite pleasant in email, though).

Andrew Sullivan. Classical liberal, Oakeshott conservative. A very incisive and passionate writer, he has an infuriating habit of demonizing the opposition. Originally very pro-war (and spent much time fulminating against the "fifth columnist" element on the left), he's now got a new enemy (those opposed to gay marriage/gay rights), so all those who were the enemy last year (the Democrats/John Kerry) are friends, and all those who were friends last year (the Republicans/George Bush) are enemies who can now do no right. When his emotions are not ruling his thinking, though, he's very, very good.

Mickey Kaus Slate's resident blogger, Mickey is a DLC "New" Democrat. He's one of the more honest of the bloggers (zings his own side often, recognizes good arguments on the other side) and a good source of insider media stuff.

Josh Marshall Establishment Democrat. I found his stuff to be really good a few years back, but recently he's spending more time rooting for the team (DNC/Kerry) than being objective. Also, darkly hints at constant "breaking soon" scoops that either never appear or completely underwhelm. Very bright guy, though, and insightful when not attempting to spin too obviously.

Kevin Drum Another Establishment Democrat. Kevin tends to be more self-reflective than Josh, which stands him in good stead. Great place to capture the mood of the DNC political types.

New Republic They have a couple of blogs (&c. and Campaign Journal). &c. is by far the better of the two. Skews left, but a sort of rationalist left (understands that while America may suck at times, other places suck more).

Tapped This used to be a great blog back in the

Tech Central Station

The Corner on National Review Online

HughHewitt.com

1. Instapundit. Written by a Glenn Reynolds, a libertarian law professor at the University of Tennessee whose expertise is in second amendment issues, technology and communication. Perhaps the most influential and widely read blog.

2. The Corner. National Review's group weblog. Lots of contributors, who vary widely in tone (after you read it a while you come to recognize who the various authors are, and what points of view they hold). If you're not a conservative, you should check it out -- you won't agree with most of the stuff, but after a while you might learn that the folks on the "other side" aren't a bunch of moronic power-mad nazis: They actually have coherent reasons for believing what they believe, and can ably articulate those views. Understanding their arguments will help you sharpen your own.

3. The Volokh Conspiracy. A group weblog of libertarian and conservative law professors. The lead conspirator, Eugene Volokh, is a computer programmer-turned UCLA law professor; he is an expert in free speech issues, with some expertise in the second amendment as well. A lot of bloggers could learn from the civil tone of this blog -- i.e., no yelling, taunting or name-calling. Volokh believes writers should try to persuade others, not alienate them with overheated rhetoric.

Note that Volokh, like Reynolds, is a true libertarian: Conservatives are unlikely to agree with either of them on things like abortion and homosexuality.

4. Andrew Sullivan. An influential writer for Time, The New Republic and other print outlets. Perhaps the best-known openly gay conservative.

5. Kausfiles. A moderate-to-conservative Democrat, Mickey Kaus is utterly unsparing (and occasionally downright brutal) in his criticism of liberal excess, fellow democrats and the media. Doesn't write a lot, but is witty and sometimes offers extraordinary insights you won't get anywhere else.

6. Best of the Web. The Wall Street Journal's blog, written by James Taranto. A once-a-day read, it sums up a lot of current issues from a conservatives' point of view.

Yes, there are many many many many others. But if the conservative/libertarian blogosphere is like a tree, these are the trunk.

- Alaska Jack

If you really want to read a high-quality conservative blog, here are two from National Review Online:

• The Corner, a braided-blog with constributions by many of NR's writers, run by Kathryn Jean Lopez, and
• The Kerry Spot, penned by Jim Geraghty, whichs follows Kerry and his campaign closely, as well as related subjects. (The Kerry Spot was one of the best sites to follow for updates on Rathergate.

• http://www.powerlineblog.com/
• Instapundit
• Little Green Footballs
• http://www.allahpundit.com/
• Rather Biased, which perked back to life after the scandal broke.
• http://www.rathergate.com/, which sprang into being shortly after the scandal broke
• http://www.indcjournal.com/
• Finally, although I'm less of a regular reader, it was a poster on Free Republic who first broke the story.

Well, that should get you started. in truth, except for the NR blogs, I was only an occasional readers of the others before the Rathergate story broke, but now I'm much more of a regular reader, much to the detriment of my productivity...

If you really want to read a high-quality conservative blog, here are two from National Review Online:

• The Corner, a braided-blog with constributions by many of NR's writers, run by Kathryn Jean Lopez, and
• The Kerry Spot, penned by Jim Geraghty, whichs follows Kerry and his campaign closely, as well as related subjects. (The Kerry Spot was one of the best sites to follow for updates on Rathergate.

• http://www.powerlineblog.com/
• Instapundit
• Little Green Footballs
• http://www.allahpundit.com/
• Rather Biased, which perked back to life after the scandal broke.
• http://www.rathergate.com/, which sprang into being shortly after the scandal broke
• http://www.indcjournal.com/
• Finally, although I'm less of a regular reader, it was a poster on Free Republic who first broke the story.

Well, that should get you started. in truth, except for the NR blogs, I was only an occasional readers of the others before the Rathergate story broke, but now I'm much more of a regular reader, much to the detriment of my productivity...

If you really want to read a high-quality conservative blog, here are two from National Review Online:

• The Corner, a braided-blog with constributions by many of NR's writers, run by Kathryn Jean Lopez, and
• The Kerry Spot, penned by Jim Geraghty, whichs follows Kerry and his campaign closely, as well as related subjects. (The Kerry Spot was one of the best sites to follow for updates on Rathergate.

• http://www.powerlineblog.com/
• Instapundit
• Little Green Footballs
• http://www.allahpundit.com/
• Rather Biased, which perked back to life after the scandal broke.
• http://www.rathergate.com/, which sprang into being shortly after the scandal broke
• http://www.indcjournal.com/
• Finally, although I'm less of a regular reader, it was a poster on Free Republic who first broke the story.

Well, that should get you started. in truth, except for the NR blogs, I was only an occasional readers of the others before the Rathergate story broke, but now I'm much more of a regular reader, much to the detriment of my productivity...

Drudge.. the original proto-bloger..
National Review's The Corner. http://nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
Captains Quarters http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
Instapundit http://instapundit.com/
Powerline http://www.powerlineblog.com/
Tim Blair http://timblair.spleenville.com/
BerkeleySquareBlog http://www.berkeleysquarejazz.com/blog/

Dailykos & Atrios for "opposition" research....

Actually, I doubt it. The inquisition actually was there to reduce unjust punishment, not increase it as you seem to imply.

Don't you mean, "under investigation for reading documents posted on an open server?

A good starting point, in my opinion, is to read the opinion mags. The New Republic is a leading left-of-center opinion magazine. National Review is indispensible for those of us on the right. The Wall Street Journal provides the most insightful coverage of the major papers that I have seen, although they are obviously pro-capitalism and are therefore accused of being right-of-center. They require a subscription to read online, but I enjoy reading their editorial pages, which are free, and love their Best of the Web Today feature.

Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.

I guess a lie as good as the truth sometimes huh?

Al Franken, is that you?

Actual link about union violence #1
Actual link about union violence #2
Actual link about union violence #3
Actual link about union violence #4

Liar.

UPDATE 11: CBS is sticking to its story. It's not entirely clear which story, however. Initially, CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said:

As is standard practice at CBS News, each of the documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity.

Later, however, Ms. Edwards sent out an email that appeared to revise the nature of the "authentication" process:

CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.

So what CBS is now saying is not that the documents are authentic, but that the opinions they express are authentic, based on the hearsay reports of anonymous persons alleged to be close associates of Col. Killian, who recall his views of thirty-two years ago. This is what passes for "authentication" in the mainstream media.

UPDATE 12: In the August 18, 1973 memo "discovered" by 60 Minutes, Jerry Killian purportedly writes:

Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.

But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal, citing Peter Nuss, points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.

The more I look at these "memos," the more obvious it appears that they are inept forgeries.

UPDATE: One Kerry Spot reader makes me laugh out loud by emailing in, "Doesn't all this business of fonts, typefaces, superscripts, centering, and spacing on 30 year-old documents, purportedly from the files of a man long dead, just make you appreciate the nicely-done, legally sufficient affidavits and personal testimonies of the still-breathing Swifties just that much more?"

When I read the transcript of John Kerry speaking to the Senate in 1971, I can't help but feel that this man is more to be trusted with our troops than a man who spent the early '70s "boasting about how much alcohol he had consumed the night before."

If you feel that John Kerry is trustworthy because you read that transcript, you should read Vetting the Vet Record and spend some time at wintersoldier.com. You might have second thoughts.

Please, explain to me, in a logical and easy to understand way, what exactly you believe is bad about that quote from Kerry. Also, if you could, explain to me exactly what you meant when you said Kerry was "full of shit". To what statements were you referring, and is there any evidence that his statements were lies?

Here are two good links to get you started:

Vetting the Vet Record

wintersoldier.com

If you read those, it shouldn't take you too long to start getting your feet on solid ground.

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans , which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

In April, the VVAW stormed Washington in a week-long protest. At the height of it, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The appearance launched Kerry's political career. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation, changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American military for decades.

But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier tribunal itself -- which John Kerry had helped moderate -- turned out to be, in the words of historian Guenter Lewy, "packed with pretenders and liars."

He [John Kerry] said in essence that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course, indeed, that it was American policy to commit such atrocities.

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans , which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

Kerry's 1971 testimony includes every left-wing cliché about Vietnam and the men who served there. It is part of the reason that even today, people who are too young to remember Vietnam are predisposed to believe the worst about the Vietnam War and those who fought it. This predisposition was driven home by the fraudulent "Tailwind" episode some months ago. ... But even Daniel Ellsberg, a severe critic of U.S. policy in Vietnam, rejected the argument that the biggest U.S. atrocity in Vietnam, My Lai, was in any way a normal event: "My Lai was beyond the bounds of permissible behavior, and that is recognizable by virtually every soldier in Vietnam. They know it was wrong....The men who were at My Lai knew there were aspects out of the ordinary. That is why they tried to hide the event, talked about it to no one, discussed it very little even among themselves."

And more:

Stolen Valor made it clear why John Kerry's testimony in 1971 slandered an entire generation of soldiers. Kerry gave credence to the claim that the war was fought primarily by reluctant draftees, predominantly composed of the poor, the young, or racial minorities.

The record shows something different, indicating that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population. Two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths.

Kerry portrayed the Vietnam veteran as ashamed of his service:

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, t

You're assuming that:

1. The media is going to take the time to understand how the national guard works. Not!

2. That the media actually cares about the "truth". More controversy, more viewers, more money. Every article about every candidate is always spun towards controversy.

3. That the media is as smart as me, so they're able to put it in such simple terms. Not! :-)

If you want to argue this, 3-4 people have come forward saying they remember him, and Bush signed the Notorious Form 180 releasing ALL his records. I don't think he's dodged this at all. The press has asked him for proof, which he did his best to provide about something that happened 30 years ago.

Here's a long answer. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20040218084 0.asp

Anyone who'd like to walk us through the facts that support Bush, without simultaneously smearing a decorated combat veteran, would be a breath of fresh air.

(The two who linked to this Byron York piece from March, thank you. But (a) that piece is from March and much new information and analysis has come to light since then, little of it favorable for Bush; (b) it admits that the documentation shows Bush simply didn't serve from May to September of 1972, which is the whole point. The one fellow who says he saw Bush during that time, John Calhoun, is less than reliable and the pay stubs contradict him. Apart from that, the best that National Review can do is to quote people who say it's possible Bush was there, but they don't remember seeing him. Faint praise.)

On Kerry's medals.

Bush AWOL: Case Closed

It might be interesting to look at Ben barnes, who claims he helped Bush get into the TANG in 1968, as Lt GOV of Texas. The only problem being that Barnes was not sworn in as LT GOV until 1969 -- in May '68, when Bush was sworn into the Guard, Barnes was actually UN Representative to Geneva.

The LA Times and CNN investigated these exact allegations in 1999, and concluded there was nothing to them.

He's also a major Kerry contributor and lost his position at Lt Gov in a stock fraud scandal..

The bottom line is that, at worst, Bush dodge the draft - and we already knew that - and then blew off his national guard service - if you didn't already know this, you should've. On the other hand, it appears from his own statements that Kerry falsely accused the United States government of having him invade a foreign country in 1968 - a claim he made from the senate floor in 1986 and has made many times before and sense.

Why do we have a media frenzy over the one and a media blackout over the other? Answer: 85% of employees in the news media are Democrats.

Now, I'm not much of a Republican. I will probably vote for Kerry. But I am disturbed at the way in which the mainstream media has failed to cover questions regarding Kerry's war record compared to this silliness about Bush's National Guard record. When they've covered the Kerry question at all, it has been coverage questioning the relationship between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat ads. They have ignored everything but the question of Bush '04 involvemnt. I would really appreaciate some responsible coverage of the Christmas in Cambodia issue, but I've been unable to find it.

You may want to take a look at the results of the HOUSEHOLD survey as opposed to just the PAYROLL survey. The fact is, the payroll survery is not a true indicator of actual employment since it does not take into account those who are self employed.

Here's an interesting link which explains the differences in the results and how there have been a gain of 2.15 million jobs since Bush's tax cuts alone.

The swift vets are also behind the anti-Kerry best seller, "Unfit for Command," which has already forced Team Kerry to retract his decades-old claim that he was sent on an illegal covert mission to Cambodia on Christmas 1968.

Kerry's own handpicked historian, Douglas Brinkley, told the Washington Post over the weekend that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong," backing up a key claim by the swift vets who say it never happened.

Kerry at times has claimed that he only threw away his military ribbons and not his medals at anti-war protests, but the swift vets use video uncovered by ABC News that shows him saying he did in fact toss his own medals.

Here is another Kerry claim that is withering:

A primary claim against Mr. Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans is that Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart -- awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968 -- did not involve the enemy and that Mr. Kerry's wounds that day were unintentionally self-inflicted.

They charge that in the confusion involving unarmed, fleeing Viet Cong, Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, which detonated nearby and splattered his arm with hot metal.
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."
A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.
"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.
If enemy fire was not involved in that or any other incident, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, no medal should be awarded.

And more:

None of Kerry's three Purple Hearts was for serious injuries. They were minor scratches, resulting in no lost duty time.

Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire.

You should also be clear that not all of the veterans who have spoken out and revealed information contrary to John Kerry's claims are members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And then there is John Kerry's testimony before Congress in 1971, which was a masterpiece of political theater in the service of lies.

It is also interesting to note that while you will hear endlessly repeated that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are funded by rich Republicans which means this:

But public records show that two of its three main backers are longtime GOP contributors: Bob Perry, a Texas home builder who gave $100,000, and Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate executive, who gave $25,000.... The third major backer is John O'Neill, who put up $25,000 and is co-author of the group's book.

.. what you won't hear is that the seed money was followed up by a lot of people making small individual contributions:

But the swift-boat veterans have vowed to continue their ad campaign and have raised more than $2 million in contributions, a

The Federalist Patriot

National Review Online

Above all: Read, watch and listen! C-SPAN is invaluable for exposure to ideas and viewpoints that one would not seek out for himself.

Not to criticize js7a--he gave you fair warning--but his list leans to the left. I don't know if I have the definitive right-leaning counterexample, but here's a list of guys who are biased right but seem to be fair in their analysis...
mainstream media:
Best of the Web Today
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner
blogs:
Instapundit
oxblog
JustOneMinute
Daniel Drezner
Captains Quarters
cartoons:
Cox and Forkum
Day by Day

All are blogs and/or openly opinionated. They are generally right wing. This is in no way a complete list, and should not even be considered the "best of", since I haven't spent a lot of time exploring. YMMV.

I'd actually be interested in hearing from people who knew of right-leaning blogs not on this list that they recommended. I am not trying to start a flame war about who's better or why Instapundit/Daily Kos is a snooty liar.

National Review is ideal if you're looking for a right-wing source to balance the usual suspects. You'll be a LOT less confused about the right-wing American viewpoint if you read it. Between that, my local newspaper (here in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor), and Yahoo! News (or Google News) I get fairly comprehensive coverage of the entire political spectrum without spending an insane amount of time.

Note that NR has, in addition to the free daily online-only articles, a Digital Edition of their dead trees mag for $20/year. They did it right too, each issue is one big HTML file and back issues (since the Digital Edition began) stay online. Very, very convenient.

and the journalist ripped the other guy to shreds

Ah, yes, this answers the question by providing an example of how the Swifties are lying. If the "journalist" ripped the guy to shreds then the Swift Boat Veterans must be lying.

he also exposed that the swift boat guy has had an agenda against Kerry for over 20 years (It's actually over 30 years)

So I suppose that George Bush has been secretly behind John O'Neill for over 30 years just so O'Neill could come out against Kerry now, right? Personally I might be upset at Kerry too if he had lied about me and then used his lies for his own personal gain over the last 30 years. Oh, and if you want to see someone "ripping the other guy to shreds," you might want to watch the John O'Neill vs. John Kerry debate of June 30, 1971.

Oh, and just so I can prove my point about providing specific examples, here are a couple from the Swift Boat Veterans:

1) John Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia - This is something that even John Kerry's campaign has been forced to acknowledge.

2) John Kerry lied about soldiers committing war crimes, himself included. Though it is true some small number of soldiers committed war crimes, it was not at all common to engage in these acts as Kerry describes it, nor was it fair to condemn the entire military based on the acts of a few. Also, this is an interesting point, either Kerry was truthful about committing war crimes and he, himself is a war criminal (far worse a criminal than those involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal I might add), or John Kerry is again lying. Which would you rather have, a pathological liar or a war criminal?

Lastly, for those who will whine and moan about why are we still talking about Vietnam, I'll tell you why. Because John Kerry can't stop talking about it! Kerry can't seem to complete a sentance without mentioning that he served in Vietnam. If Kerry wants us to look at his Vietnam record above his Senate record for the past 20 years then we're going to do it. And we won't back down.