Actually I think this strikes right to the heart of the matter. I would never support the idea of choosing a single person, like a president, by lottery. What if that person was nuts? Or, as you noted, David Duke?
On the other hand, the idea of choosing a *body* of people is different. Would you get a few wingnuts in there? Absolutely -- in fact, you could almost guarantee it. But you could also guarantee that those folks would be a tiny minority without any real power.
So the nation as a whole would be pretty safe, I should think, under this scenario. Of course, our representatives don't just work for the nation; they are also expected to represent their home districts. If you kept that same expectation, but replaced elections with a lottery, there would *definitely* be the potential for any particular district to get royally screwed.
I wonder if and how that could be taken into account?
Well, first, if you have a separate president (as opposed to a Prime Minister), you'd pretty much have to have that as an elected position.
I'm an American, so in offering ideas for parliamentary systems, there is always the danger of putting my foot in my mouth. I mean, there may be some subtlety of the system of which I am not aware.
I thought Ministers were chosen by vote of the members of parliament, and taken from the members of their own ranks. But wait, I can't remember why I thought that was the case. I'll have to look it up. Anway, if that is correct, it seems to me that if members of a randomly chosen legislature had to spend a year of non-voting apprenticeship, then at the end of that year they could just vote among themselves to select who is most qualified to hold those positions.
I should also note that I normally only comment on subjects where I have at least the tiniest notion as to what I am talking about:^]
I only want to point out one thing that isn't quite accurate.
I know it's not your main point, but you say "too many Americans don't vote at all, because they don't think it will make a difference or feel represented."
Actually, this is one of the mystifying things about democracy. The plain truth of the matter is that we don't *know* exactly why more people don't vote. There are a number of theories, but for each of them there is a body of data suggesting they are wrong. Which is to say, for every piece of evidence suggesting people don't vote because they are disaffected, or whatever, there is another piece of evidence suggesting people don't vote because they generally think things are fine the way they are.
The ancient Greeks used to fill a lot of their governmental positions by lottery. Also, Bill Buckley is famous for noting that you'd getter better government out of the first 200 names in the Cambridge phone book than you would from the faculty at Harvard. These two things got me thinking -- Could you really construct a workable modern system around that concept?
Imagine, just for fun, a legislative body chosen by lottery.
* You'd probably want to exclude felons and the legally insane.
* You couldn't, of course, compel anyone to serve, but you'd want to make serving an attractive proposition, so you'd have to make the experience a financially rewarding one.
* Bribery would be a big problem. You'd have to try to ameliorate through a combination of a healthy salary, draconian punishment, and probably a healthy guaranteed pension for life for those chosen to serve.
* Currently, legislatures are full of strong personalities which tend to cancel each other out. In a randomly selected body, strong personalities would have a much greater tendency to influence the weak.
* Legislators would (at least at first) need to rely to a greater extent on professional bureacracies of expert wonks. On the other hand, the U.S. government is sufficiently complex that it's not like any one legislator can master all of it anyway, so I think it's arguable as to how much of a change this would be.
* Randomly choosen legislators would not be accountable through the mechanism of elections, though I suppose they could still be impeached.
* One could make the case for choosing members of one house by lottery, and members of the other (presumable the Senate) by election. But that's no fun.
* You would probably want to hold the lottery every year, but not for every seat, so members would hold overlapping terms.
* You might also want your selectees to serve a one-year period of apprenticeship, learning how the system works before they're actually able to vote or anything.
Anyway, it's kind of a fun idea to toy with. It would certainly have its drawbacks, but I'm not convinced those drawbacks would be anything worse than what we have now. At least it would stop everyone from bitching about the influence of money on elections.
I'd like a service that recorded everything in FLAC or other lossless encoding, then let you choose to either download that, or transcode it to whatever you want.
(AllOfMP3 transcodes almost everything from 384 kbps MP3s. The exceptions are its "Online Exclusive" offerings, which let you encode off the original.cda audio, but those offerings are pretty few.)
For crying out loud, you're making my points for me.
The typist, who says Bush was "selected not elected" and that she doesn't like his politics, claims one very limited thing: that Bush's superior officer had troubles with Bush as a subordinate. Well, guess what: That directly contradicts *other* testimony from other squadron members, members of Killian's family (one of whom also served in the squadron) and, most importantly, Killian's written reviews of Bush's performance.
So could the secretary be right? Once again, sure. But it's a he-said-she-said scenario. So which of us is more inclined to believe a "myth"?: Me, who looks at the situation and says, "Hmmm, it's possible either way," or you, who says "Bush is guilty, dammit! Guilty guilty guilty!"
OK, now lets review a few facts.
1. The Lt. Governor is a long-time, hard core Democrat whose own daughter says he admitted to her that he made up the Bush story.
2. The guy who actually admitted Bush into the Guard, Staudt, says there was no huge waiting list of people who had both the desire and the qualifications to be fighter pilots in the Air Guard. He has said the numbers boiled down to about 10/year. In 1968, one of these 10 was a Yale graduate whose father was a decorated WWII fighter pilot.
3. Three of Bush's squadron mates have testified that Bush asked about signing up for the Palace Alert program, under which Guard members rotated to Vietnam. He was turned down based on the fact that others had more flying hours, and the F-102s he flew on were being phased out anyway.
(Interestingly, contrast that with Kerry's record: Applied for a student deferrment to study in Paris, was denied, signed up for Swift Boat duty at a time when serving on a swift boat was the safest "combat duty" in the Navy. [At the time, Swift Boats were limited to coastal patrol; it was only after Kerry signed up that their mission was changed to include river patrol.])
4. I can say all of this, and still acknowledge that Staudt may have considered Bush's father's status when W. applied for the TANG. I mean, here was a Yale graduate whose father was not only a decorated WWII combat pilot, but a well-connected political figure. Heck yeah, that fact was probably not lost on him (though Staudt denies this). The only problem with this scenario is that it doesn't provide much ammunition for hard-core Bush haters. I mean, even if it's true: So what?
5. Ahh, the ol' Chicken Hawk fallacy, once so beloved of right-wingers. Perhaps you could come right out and say it: Do you believe that only those who have seen combat are fit to be President? Or use military force once elected? How about Roosevelt? Clinton? Heck, there are so many problems with this idea, I'm not even going to bother.
So there you have it. One of us looks at the available data and takes an even-handed approach as to what is evidence vs. hearsay, classifying some things as facts, others as probable, and others as simply possible but unproven. The other looks at the same situation and pronounces that he knows for sure what happened, that Bush is evil and that all the facts must fit that thesis.
Hi, sorry took me so long to get around to this. Just been very busy, that's all.
1. No need to be sorry.
2. So I've read the article. I don't agree with his conclusions. He is downplaying the torture at Abu Ghraib (sorry, but those weren't just panties...), his arguments aren't very deep ("Bush was hardly alone in believing there were WMDs, and given the convictions of so many over such a long period, he erred on the right side.") and all in all his arguments are those I've read about one year ago on FR (albeit less polished;).
You are, of course, entitled to your own conclusions. I agree that Goldberg, in this article, downplays Abu Ghraib. On this point you should know, however, that American conservatives were quite harsh in condemning the A.G. abuses. From the point of view of a pro-Iraq-war conservative, Abu Ghraib was a fiasco because, at the very least, it undermined what the U.S. was trying to accomplish in Iraq. You may not agree with their perspective, but you should know that conservatives were not, in general, defending the perpetrators. To the contrary, there were many calls for the harshest possible punishment for those involved.
Your second observation, that Goldberg's arguments ("Bush was hardly alone in believing there were WMDs, and given the convictions of so many over such a long period, he erred on the right side.") weren't very deep, is true. On the other hand, something doesn't have to be deep to be true, and it is hard to refute him here. Iraq at one time did indeed, by its own admission, have a large stockpile of WMDs, and despite many opportunities, never gave anyone any reason to think they had disposed of them. Remember, the disagreement before the war was not whether Saddam HAD WMDs; it was what to DO about them. Finally, even if Bush erred, many in the U.S. believe he did the right thing. With some justification, they say the fault was Saddam's, for not coming clean with inspectors and disastrously misjudging American resolve in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
The funniest point to me is him protecting Bush from the "leftist media". Funny because out of the US basically no-one would attest the CNN being left-wing and the blatant right-wing attitude of Fox News is almost unbearable if you're used to european media stations that at least TRY to be neutral with their news.
Hmmm. Frankly, I have a tough time evaluating this. I've never been to Europe. I have heard Americans returning from Europe describe in amazed tones what they perceive as the consistent anti-Americanism of the European press. So I'm not sure what to think. I don't consider CNN left-wing, just center-mildly-leaning-left, like most of the press. I don't watch Fox, so I can't comment on that either.
Funny, too, is his point about all these sick countries with their unthankful stance towards the US. I doubt that Mr. Goldberg has been to other countries after 9/11. At least in Germany the sympathy to the US was astonishing. It only began to weaken as Bush began his crusade against Iraq, showing that he would declare war regardless of arguments that spoke against in, trying to justify this illegal war with hillarity, er, WMDs.
I read this passage several times while trying to figure out how to respond. I don't want to be uncivil, but this is something of a "hot button" for a lot of Americans. Basically, the aftermath of 9/11 gave us a taste of something Israel had been saying for a long time: "If you're attacked," so the argument goes, "Europeans will be great sympathizers. As long, that is, as you sit back and let yourselves get murdered, and don't try to fight back. If you actually do anything to try to stop your people from getting murdered, you will lose all sympathy, and in fact they will condemn you vociferously."
As an American, I can't tell you how moved we were when France and Germany, for example, said things like "We are all Americans" and so forth. Perhaps that is why we felt so betrayed in the time t
Ohmigoodness. Talk about being determined to believe what you want to believe!
1. I have no idea how many blogs mentioned this or that. I don't monitor them and tabulate their opinions on any given issue.
2. "Their story was true." This seemed to be a common response on liberal blogs. Let me draw you an analogy to try to show you how dishonest this is.
I have in my hand an official government document identifying you, Doc Ruby, as a child molester. No, no, don't try to muddy the issue by pointing out the many things in this document that suggest it is a forgery. All that quibbling is just a transparent attempt to distract attention from the real issue: Can you, Doc Ruby, prove that you are not, in fact, a child molester?
Get my point? The memos were the evidence to back up what had been, to that point, unsubstantiated allegations. That's precisely why CBS made such a big deal over them. Without the memos, they had, well, unsubstantiated allegations.
2. Clinton dodged the draft. Bush joined the National Guard. There's a difference. Did he join the ANG to avoid being drafted? Possibly. But see the next item...
3. The typist never said Bush dodged the draft. The controversy was about the circumstances under which Bush *left* the Guard, not those under which he *joined* it.
4. The typist was a typist, for God's sake. She would have been in no position to know any of that anyway.
5. Her story didn't "finally debunk the memos' authenticity," except perhaps as far as CBS was concerned. In the real world, many many document experts had already weighed in saying they were 99% certain the documents were forged. The typist's story didn't come as any big revelation. She simply noted that she didn't type the memos.
6. Your biggest mistake is stating "their story was true, and Bush dodged the draft." You are repeating something as fact which you have no way of knowing one way or another. A number of allegations have been made against Bush, none of which have been substantiated, and all of which have been denied or refuted by other parties. Are some of them possibly true? Sure. It's also possibly true that Dan Rather is the Queen of the Space Unicorns. But I'll wait until someone actually produces proof before I go around pronouncing it as fact.
OK, I've read the flier and the NYT article, and I agree with Mr. Land that the flier stretches the truth too far. I don't find it horribly outrageous, because the flier is true *in a sense*. Liberals do indeed proudly believe the Bible should be "banned" from schools, for example.
So the flier stretches the truth, but in ways I guess I've come to consider typical campaign-style, from both parties.
Eugene Volokh makes the point: Would it also be outrageous for the cover of a Democratic pamphlet to call Republicans "Anti-Choice"? I mean, sure, they're anti-choice, but only in a very narrow sense.
I still don't like the flier, but having viewed it, it's not as outrageous as I was led to believe.
Hmmmm. First, I should say that I'm well aware of what kind of economy we have; I just simplified it as "capitalism" because, in a relative sense, that *best* describes it.
Second, I do understand your point about schools. Yes, school is mandatory up until age 16. Frankly, I agree with this, though I am of the opinion that the governmental education monopoly should be smashed. I'll spare you the lecture on the need for an educated populace; let's just say we agree to disagree on that.
I completely agree with everything you say about power structures, the status quo and all that. I still stand by my original point, which is that it's not the media's job to be an engine of social change. Just give me the damn facts!
First, and most important, I agree with you that this is "bullsh!t." I hate this kind of stuff.
However, I want to add a thought or two.
First, as one who has been involved with journalism on and off for a long time, there are a couple of extremely fishy things about this particular story. Journalistically speaking, it's *very* odd that they quoted a number of critics of the pamphlet, but not a single quote from anyone defending it. Not even "The Republican Committee declined to comment on the pamphlet" or something like that. Very strange.
Also, they hardly say anything at all about what the pamphlet actually says. All we know for sure is that is says "vote Republican to protect our families" (hardly unusual); defeat the "liberal agenda" (hardly unusual); that voters should elect judgest who "interpret the law and not legislate from the bench" (hardly unusual); and "the liberal agenda includes removing 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance" (only partially true).
As for the cover, the word "banned" might be misleading, but only in the sense that describing Republicans as "anti-choice" is. Go to volokh.com for a good discussion of this.
There is a technical problem with your formulation.
Liberals regularly refer to as "banned" books which school boards, etc. take out of their schools' respective curricula. So in that sense, the bible could indeed be "banned."
A level-headed discussion of this is at volokh.com
Can't mod, because I posted on this topic, but very insightful. Also, I'd add that the article covers a time when Kerry *was* getting relatively bad press (declining poll numbers, etc.), even in the mainstream press, and Google just reflected that.
Now, it can be argued that Kerry didn't *deserve* the bad press, but that's not Google's responsibility. They can't be put in the position of deciding who "deserves" their bad press, and who doesn't.
I've heard this sort of argument before, and though I too consider myself a libertarian, I must disagree with the basic thesis.
Most often I hear the argument from leftists, regarding the economy. "Sure," they'll say, "social and political reporting may be liberally biased, but economic reporting is conservatively biased, since it never questions the fundamental approach of the free market or capitalism. By acting like the free market is the only viable approach, they tacitly endorse it."
The problem I have with this argument is this: It's not the media's role to "question" *anything*. The media's role is to report the way things are, and the fact is, we do have a capitalist economy. It's *our* job to "question" things.
Remember, I'm on your side here, so don't get too defensive. I'm hugely critical of the mainstream media. I just disagree with the idea that it's their job to "question" things.
- Alaska Jack
PS One note: You say "both the left and the right operate on the assumption that forced government schooling is a good thing." I can't speak for the left, but on the right, this issue is a HUGE question. Many believe that the government does indeed have a mandate to see that our children are educated -- they just don't think that means it has to be the government *itself* doing the educating. FWIW.
Just a comment (informative I hope) about AllOfMP3.com. Yes you can choose your format, but a lot of people seem to be under the impression that all those formats are encoded off the original source. They're not. Almost all their stuff is re-encoded from 384 kbps MP3 files. Some stuff is available encoded straight from CD (their so-called "online exclusive" stuff), but the vast majority is not.
You might know this already, but I was surprised to learn it.
Also, some of their stuff not available via online encoding: in other words, only have a single choice of formats/encodings, usually 192 kbps MP3. I don't know if those selections were taken right off the CDs, or if they too were transcoded from 384 kbps. Anyone know for sure?
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.
6. Given all that, it still may not be your cup of tea; an opinion to which you are, of course, entirely entitled.
Cheers,
- Alaska Jack
* I highly recommend actually doing this. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
Well, there is a lot I could say about all that, but instead I'll simply fall back to my original point: If you think Bush is a crappy president based on things he's doing *now*, that's your perogative. I simply don't think people care about Bush's *past*, since he is not running based on it, and has already admitted he was not a very good guy.
A fair and even-handed post. But let me add a couple of thoughts.
1. "For the most part no one wants to know about the exploits of anyone else's penis unless they're scripted and in a porno movie"
Or they involve a man in a position of power taking advantage of a subordinate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Lewinsky was some sort of naive ingenue. But it is precisely these sort of relationships that were of great concern to a large segment of the feminist establishment -- at least, until one involved a president they liked.
As a side note, if Clinton had dallied with ML and then just come clean about it, it would have been disgraceful, but he wouldn't have been impeached. It's an important point that seems to be glossed over a lot these days. Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with an intern; he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and tampering with witnesses. Of those things he was certainly guilty -- he survived the Senate vote not because he was innocent, but simply because Senate Democrats didn't feel it would be good for the party if one of their presidents were removed (and yes, tragically, I'm sure most Senate Republicans would have done the same thing if it had been their man).
2. No one is suggesting we "pat [Bush] on the back."
3. There is, of course, a major difference between these two patterns of behavior: Bush stopped, and pretty much reformed his whole life; Clinton never stopped. (Until, of course, he was caught, and even then he denied it and had his surrogates paint Lewinsky as a demented stalker. Just think: If Lewinsky had just washed that blue dress, this would still be the official story, and a lot of people would be energetically defending it and insisting that nutcase Lewinsky made the whole thing up.)
4. 'He doesn't seem to be a good president but we're just okay with that?"
To the contrary, you are welcome to think he is the worst president in history, and try to make that case to others. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My point was simply that I believe it was and is a mistake to try to persuade others that Bush is a bad president simply by pointing to what he did or didn't do 30 years ago. It's not that people haven't listened; it's that they HAVE listened, digested the input, and decided it doesn't matter.
5. "the Republicans are willing to use any point of contention to decry the value of a president..."
I don't follow you here. I'm not trying to be snotty -- I really don't understand what you mean.
6. We agree that the WoD is a pretty stupid use of our resources.
In a nutshell, your post encapsulates why liberals have done such a poor job of turning people off from Bush.
Let me explain myself using a short sentence of one-syllable words: NO ONE CARES.
Bush has acknowledged many times that he wasn't a very good human being at an earlier stage of his life. By all accounts, he has changed: Even his political enemies in Texas acknowledge that he made a remarkable mid-life turnaround. He seems to sincerely believe that he was saved by turning to Jesus. Now, that might make you gag, and that's fine. But the point is, HE believes it, and there's simply no evidence of insincerity on this point.
The difference between him and Kerry is that Bush is not running based on who he was or what he did as a young man. On the other hand, Kerry is, and for good reason: That's all he really has to offer. Beyond his four-month service in Vietnam, he has a twenty-year record of relatively undistinguished service in the U.S. Senate, representing a small, liberal Northeast State. This is not a particularly harsh critique, but it neither is it a a recipe for electoral success, and he and his advisors know it.
Incidentally, I DO count Kerry's service in Vietnam as a small plus. It's just not enough to constitute the majority of his campaign platform.
To sum up:
Bush: No one cares about his actions as youth, because he a) has already acknowledged his failings, and b) is not basing his campaign on them anyway.
Kerry: People do care about his actions as a youth, because he a) is basing his campaign on them, and b) has not been forthcoming when parts of his record have been questioned.
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.
You say Kos "had a quick but unfortunately wrong analysis of the now-thoroughly-discredited Rather memos."
This isn't quite accurate. "Fortune" implies some sort of luck was involved. But in actuallity, Kos mounted a furious and quite deliberate defense of something that he passionately believed should have been true. He was sure that anyone who believes anything different from what *he* believes must be a lying scumbag, and that attitude caused him to insist that his version of reality was true, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
This contrasts with the behavior I saw on most conservative blogs. Even those who doubted the memos seemed to take pains to mention that there was still a dwindling chance they *could* be real. (Of course, they also noted that even if the memos *did* turn out to be real, Rather and CBS still came out of the whole thing looking terrible).
I'm not an expert on the Palestinian/Arab conflict, and don't pretend to be. Also, I doubt anything I could say here would change your mind in the slightest. Nevertheless, allow me to make a few points. (UPDATE - This has turned into my longest post ever:^[ But at least it gave me the chance to think about the situation a little more than I had previously.)
1. First, a point about the United Nations. People who don't know very much about it, or how it works, seem to think it has some sort of moral authority, acting for the common good of all mankind.
However, it has been pointed out many times that a more accurate term than "United Nations" would be "United Regimes." Governments from all over the world -- many or most of them unelected, and many with absolutely appalling human rights records (see, for example, the Arab states) -- come together to argue for their own interests. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not totally dismissing it. The U.N. can serve as a useful forum for nations to hash out their differences. But to think it has any sort of moral authority is absolutely laughable to anyone who actually knows how it works.
Now, a "League of Democracies" -- that might actually have some moral authority. But of course, it would include Israel, and not a single Arab country.
2. I may have my history wrong, but I seem to remember the UN's 1948 resolution calling for separate states for both Jews and Palestinians. The Arab countries responded to this UN resolution by stating they would never accept a Jewish state, then banding together and attacking it.
3. I kind of agree with Alan Dershowitz (and believe me, I feel queasy saying that) on this. Every dispute about this matter always ends up with history being debated. It always boils down to a he-said-she-said involving people who are long dead and who were hardly impartial to begin with. The fact is that, on many of the historical questions, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH. We just pick a side that seems most sympathetic to us, and decide to accept all their claims while rejecting all the others'.
So I've come to the conclusion that the PAST DOESN'T MATTER, at least to the extent that we cannot allow it to constrain our actions in the present. What matters is crafting a solution that will work for the future.
In that, the link you provide is just another dismal example of why we will never see peace in the region. Like I said, I am not an expert. But to refresh my memory about the Barak peace deal I relied on the International Herald Tribune, CNN International and other relatively reputable sources of facts. You, on the other hand, pick a 100% pro-Palestinian site that rages against Israel. The settlement blocs "are like daggers tearing into the flesh of the future Palestinian state"? Give me a break. The site first admits that the Barak deal went further than any other, than immediately starts to quibble. It's not "exactly" 92 percent. This provision is unacceptable. That provision is not open to negotiation.
But in the big picture, THAT'S THE PROBLEM -- THERE ARE TOO MANY THINGS THE PA CALLS UNACCEPTABLE. There WILL NOT BE PEACE until the PA recognizes that Israel is not just going to go away, and that it has to negotiate resolutions to some of these problems. I know that the "right of return," for example, is a big one, but the REALITY of the situation is that Israel is just not going to sign something that everybody knows would be its suicide note. It is foolish to think it would. On the other hand, whether the Arabs have "guardianship" or "control" or "functional autonomy" or whatever over this neighborhood or that neighborhood is not a death sentence for Palestine. Those things should be open to negotiation, and on some things, the Palestinians are going to have to settle for less than they want. But Arafat never even tried to negotiate. It's been widely reported that he made no counteroffer, and indeed barely even spoke during the negotiations.**
I love Scotland! Don't get me wrong -- I've never been there. But it sounds fantastic, especially Northern Scotland. Everyone says the weather is terrible, but I grew up in Alaska, so it sounds great to me! It's on my list of places I absolutely must visit.
Having re-read both your posts and mine, I am quite comfortable with my points. No point in dragging this out.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I think this strikes right to the heart of the matter. I would never support the idea of choosing a single person, like a president, by lottery. What if that person was nuts? Or, as you noted, David Duke?
On the other hand, the idea of choosing a *body* of people is different. Would you get a few wingnuts in there? Absolutely -- in fact, you could almost guarantee it. But you could also guarantee that those folks would be a tiny minority without any real power.
So the nation as a whole would be pretty safe, I should think, under this scenario. Of course, our representatives don't just work for the nation; they are also expected to represent their home districts. If you kept that same expectation, but replaced elections with a lottery, there would *definitely* be the potential for any particular district to get royally screwed.
I wonder if and how that could be taken into account?
- Alaska Jack
Well, first, if you have a separate president (as opposed to a Prime Minister), you'd pretty much have to have that as an elected position.
:^]
I'm an American, so in offering ideas for parliamentary systems, there is always the danger of putting my foot in my mouth. I mean, there may be some subtlety of the system of which I am not aware.
I thought Ministers were chosen by vote of the members of parliament, and taken from the members of their own ranks. But wait, I can't remember why I thought that was the case. I'll have to look it up. Anway, if that is correct, it seems to me that if members of a randomly chosen legislature had to spend a year of non-voting apprenticeship, then at the end of that year they could just vote among themselves to select who is most qualified to hold those positions.
I should also note that I normally only comment on subjects where I have at least the tiniest notion as to what I am talking about
- Alaska Jack
Your words ...
Oh? So you won't mind when the lottery comes up with David Duke (former KKK leader) as the new president?
My words ... [emphasis added]
Imagine, just for fun, a legislative body chosen by lottery.
- Alaska Jack
I only want to point out one thing that isn't quite accurate.
I know it's not your main point, but you say "too many Americans don't vote at all, because they don't think it will make a difference or feel represented."
Actually, this is one of the mystifying things about democracy. The plain truth of the matter is that we don't *know* exactly why more people don't vote. There are a number of theories, but for each of them there is a body of data suggesting they are wrong. Which is to say, for every piece of evidence suggesting people don't vote because they are disaffected, or whatever, there is another piece of evidence suggesting people don't vote because they generally think things are fine the way they are.
- Alaska Jack
The ancient Greeks used to fill a lot of their governmental positions by lottery. Also, Bill Buckley is famous for noting that you'd getter better government out of the first 200 names in the Cambridge phone book than you would from the faculty at Harvard. These two things got me thinking -- Could you really construct a workable modern system around that concept?
Imagine, just for fun, a legislative body chosen by lottery.
* You'd probably want to exclude felons and the legally insane.
* You couldn't, of course, compel anyone to serve, but you'd want to make serving an attractive proposition, so you'd have to make the experience a financially rewarding one.
* Bribery would be a big problem. You'd have to try to ameliorate through a combination of a healthy salary, draconian punishment, and probably a healthy guaranteed pension for life for those chosen to serve.
* Currently, legislatures are full of strong personalities which tend to cancel each other out. In a randomly selected body, strong personalities would have a much greater tendency to influence the weak.
* Legislators would (at least at first) need to rely to a greater extent on professional bureacracies of expert wonks. On the other hand, the U.S. government is sufficiently complex that it's not like any one legislator can master all of it anyway, so I think it's arguable as to how much of a change this would be.
* Randomly choosen legislators would not be accountable through the mechanism of elections, though I suppose they could still be impeached.
* One could make the case for choosing members of one house by lottery, and members of the other (presumable the Senate) by election. But that's no fun.
* You would probably want to hold the lottery every year, but not for every seat, so members would hold overlapping terms.
* You might also want your selectees to serve a one-year period of apprenticeship, learning how the system works before they're actually able to vote or anything.
Anyway, it's kind of a fun idea to toy with. It would certainly have its drawbacks, but I'm not convinced those drawbacks would be anything worse than what we have now. At least it would stop everyone from bitching about the influence of money on elections.
- Alaska Jack
I'd like a service that recorded everything in FLAC or other lossless encoding, then let you choose to either download that, or transcode it to whatever you want.
.cda audio, but those offerings are pretty few.)
(AllOfMP3 transcodes almost everything from 384 kbps MP3s. The exceptions are its "Online Exclusive" offerings, which let you encode off the original
- Alaska Jack
For crying out loud, you're making my points for me.
The typist, who says Bush was "selected not elected" and that she doesn't like his politics, claims one very limited thing: that Bush's superior officer had troubles with Bush as a subordinate. Well, guess what: That directly contradicts *other* testimony from other squadron members, members of Killian's family (one of whom also served in the squadron) and, most importantly, Killian's written reviews of Bush's performance.
So could the secretary be right? Once again, sure. But it's a he-said-she-said scenario. So which of us is more inclined to believe a "myth"?: Me, who looks at the situation and says, "Hmmm, it's possible either way," or you, who says "Bush is guilty, dammit! Guilty guilty guilty!"
OK, now lets review a few facts.
1. The Lt. Governor is a long-time, hard core Democrat whose own daughter says he admitted to her that he made up the Bush story.
2. The guy who actually admitted Bush into the Guard, Staudt, says there was no huge waiting list of people who had both the desire and the qualifications to be fighter pilots in the Air Guard. He has said the numbers boiled down to about 10/year. In 1968, one of these 10 was a Yale graduate whose father was a decorated WWII fighter pilot.
3. Three of Bush's squadron mates have testified that Bush asked about signing up for the Palace Alert program, under which Guard members rotated to Vietnam. He was turned down based on the fact that others had more flying hours, and the F-102s he flew on were being phased out anyway.
(Interestingly, contrast that with Kerry's record: Applied for a student deferrment to study in Paris, was denied, signed up for Swift Boat duty at a time when serving on a swift boat was the safest "combat duty" in the Navy. [At the time, Swift Boats were limited to coastal patrol; it was only after Kerry signed up that their mission was changed to include river patrol.])
4. I can say all of this, and still acknowledge that Staudt may have considered Bush's father's status when W. applied for the TANG. I mean, here was a Yale graduate whose father was not only a decorated WWII combat pilot, but a well-connected political figure. Heck yeah, that fact was probably not lost on him (though Staudt denies this). The only problem with this scenario is that it doesn't provide much ammunition for hard-core Bush haters. I mean, even if it's true: So what?
5. Ahh, the ol' Chicken Hawk fallacy, once so beloved of right-wingers. Perhaps you could come right out and say it: Do you believe that only those who have seen combat are fit to be President? Or use military force once elected? How about Roosevelt? Clinton? Heck, there are so many problems with this idea, I'm not even going to bother.
So there you have it. One of us looks at the available data and takes an even-handed approach as to what is evidence vs. hearsay, classifying some things as facts, others as probable, and others as simply possible but unproven. The other looks at the same situation and pronounces that he knows for sure what happened, that Bush is evil and that all the facts must fit that thesis.
Good luck persuading people.
- Alaska Jack
Hi, sorry took me so long to get around to this. Just been very busy, that's all.
1. No need to be sorry.
2. So I've read the article. I don't agree with his conclusions. He is downplaying the torture at Abu Ghraib (sorry, but those weren't just panties...), his arguments aren't very deep ("Bush was hardly alone in believing there were WMDs, and given the convictions of so many over such a long period, he erred on the right side.") and all in all his arguments are those I've read about one year ago on FR (albeit less polished ;).
You are, of course, entitled to your own conclusions. I agree that Goldberg, in this article, downplays Abu Ghraib. On this point you should know, however, that American conservatives were quite harsh in condemning the A.G. abuses. From the point of view of a pro-Iraq-war conservative, Abu Ghraib was a fiasco because, at the very least, it undermined what the U.S. was trying to accomplish in Iraq. You may not agree with their perspective, but you should know that conservatives were not, in general, defending the perpetrators. To the contrary, there were many calls for the harshest possible punishment for those involved.
Your second observation, that Goldberg's arguments ("Bush was hardly alone in believing there were WMDs, and given the convictions of so many over such a long period, he erred on the right side.") weren't very deep, is true. On the other hand, something doesn't have to be deep to be true, and it is hard to refute him here. Iraq at one time did indeed, by its own admission, have a large stockpile of WMDs, and despite many opportunities, never gave anyone any reason to think they had disposed of them. Remember, the disagreement before the war was not whether Saddam HAD WMDs; it was what to DO about them. Finally, even if Bush erred, many in the U.S. believe he did the right thing. With some justification, they say the fault was Saddam's, for not coming clean with inspectors and disastrously misjudging American resolve in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
The funniest point to me is him protecting Bush from the "leftist media". Funny because out of the US basically no-one would attest the CNN being left-wing and the blatant right-wing attitude of Fox News is almost unbearable if you're used to european media stations that at least TRY to be neutral with their news.
Hmmm. Frankly, I have a tough time evaluating this. I've never been to Europe. I have heard Americans returning from Europe describe in amazed tones what they perceive as the consistent anti-Americanism of the European press. So I'm not sure what to think. I don't consider CNN left-wing, just center-mildly-leaning-left, like most of the press. I don't watch Fox, so I can't comment on that either.
Funny, too, is his point about all these sick countries with their unthankful stance towards the US. I doubt that Mr. Goldberg has been to other countries after 9/11. At least in Germany the sympathy to the US was astonishing. It only began to weaken as Bush began his crusade against Iraq, showing that he would declare war regardless of arguments that spoke against in, trying to justify this illegal war with hillarity, er, WMDs.
I read this passage several times while trying to figure out how to respond. I don't want to be uncivil, but this is something of a "hot button" for a lot of Americans. Basically, the aftermath of 9/11 gave us a taste of something Israel had been saying for a long time: "If you're attacked," so the argument goes, "Europeans will be great sympathizers. As long, that is, as you sit back and let yourselves get murdered, and don't try to fight back. If you actually do anything to try to stop your people from getting murdered, you will lose all sympathy, and in fact they will condemn you vociferously."
As an American, I can't tell you how moved we were when France and Germany, for example, said things like "We are all Americans" and so forth. Perhaps that is why we felt so betrayed in the time t
Ohmigoodness. Talk about being determined to believe what you want to believe!
...
1. I have no idea how many blogs mentioned this or that. I don't monitor them and tabulate their opinions on any given issue.
2. "Their story was true." This seemed to be a common response on liberal blogs. Let me draw you an analogy to try to show you how dishonest this is.
I have in my hand an official government document identifying you, Doc Ruby, as a child molester. No, no, don't try to muddy the issue by pointing out the many things in this document that suggest it is a forgery. All that quibbling is just a transparent attempt to distract attention from the real issue: Can you, Doc Ruby, prove that you are not, in fact, a child molester?
Get my point? The memos were the evidence to back up what had been, to that point, unsubstantiated allegations. That's precisely why CBS made such a big deal over them. Without the memos, they had, well, unsubstantiated allegations.
2. Clinton dodged the draft. Bush joined the National Guard. There's a difference. Did he join the ANG to avoid being drafted? Possibly. But see the next item
3. The typist never said Bush dodged the draft. The controversy was about the circumstances under which Bush *left* the Guard, not those under which he *joined* it.
4. The typist was a typist, for God's sake. She would have been in no position to know any of that anyway.
5. Her story didn't "finally debunk the memos' authenticity," except perhaps as far as CBS was concerned. In the real world, many many document experts had already weighed in saying they were 99% certain the documents were forged. The typist's story didn't come as any big revelation. She simply noted that she didn't type the memos.
6. Your biggest mistake is stating "their story was true, and Bush dodged the draft." You are repeating something as fact which you have no way of knowing one way or another. A number of allegations have been made against Bush, none of which have been substantiated, and all of which have been denied or refuted by other parties. Are some of them possibly true? Sure. It's also possibly true that Dan Rather is the Queen of the Space Unicorns. But I'll wait until someone actually produces proof before I go around pronouncing it as fact.
- Alaska Jack
OK, I've read the flier and the NYT article, and I agree with Mr. Land that the flier stretches the truth too far. I don't find it horribly outrageous, because the flier is true *in a sense*. Liberals do indeed proudly believe the Bible should be "banned" from schools, for example.
So the flier stretches the truth, but in ways I guess I've come to consider typical campaign-style, from both parties.
Eugene Volokh makes the point: Would it also be outrageous for the cover of a Democratic pamphlet to call Republicans "Anti-Choice"? I mean, sure, they're anti-choice, but only in a very narrow sense.
I still don't like the flier, but having viewed it, it's not as outrageous as I was led to believe.
- Alaska Jack
Hmmmm. First, I should say that I'm well aware of what kind of economy we have; I just simplified it as "capitalism" because, in a relative sense, that *best* describes it.
Second, I do understand your point about schools. Yes, school is mandatory up until age 16. Frankly, I agree with this, though I am of the opinion that the governmental education monopoly should be smashed. I'll spare you the lecture on the need for an educated populace; let's just say we agree to disagree on that.
I completely agree with everything you say about power structures, the status quo and all that. I still stand by my original point, which is that it's not the media's job to be an engine of social change. Just give me the damn facts!
cheers,
- AJ
Thanks, although this doesn't exonerate CBS from only publicizing one side of the story.
I'll take a look at the pamphlet as soon as I can.
- AJ
First, and most important, I agree with you that this is "bullsh!t." I hate this kind of stuff.
However, I want to add a thought or two.
First, as one who has been involved with journalism on and off for a long time, there are a couple of extremely fishy things about this particular story. Journalistically speaking, it's *very* odd that they quoted a number of critics of the pamphlet, but not a single quote from anyone defending it. Not even "The Republican Committee declined to comment on the pamphlet" or something like that. Very strange.
Also, they hardly say anything at all about what the pamphlet actually says. All we know for sure is that is says "vote Republican to protect our families" (hardly unusual); defeat the "liberal agenda" (hardly unusual); that voters should elect judgest who "interpret the law and not legislate from the bench" (hardly unusual); and "the liberal agenda includes removing 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance" (only partially true).
As for the cover, the word "banned" might be misleading, but only in the sense that describing Republicans as "anti-choice" is. Go to volokh.com for a good discussion of this.
- Alaska Jack
There is a technical problem with your formulation.
Liberals regularly refer to as "banned" books which school boards, etc. take out of their schools' respective curricula. So in that sense, the bible could indeed be "banned."
A level-headed discussion of this is at volokh.com
- Alaska Jack
Can't mod, because I posted on this topic, but very insightful. Also, I'd add that the article covers a time when Kerry *was* getting relatively bad press (declining poll numbers, etc.), even in the mainstream press, and Google just reflected that.
Now, it can be argued that Kerry didn't *deserve* the bad press, but that's not Google's responsibility. They can't be put in the position of deciding who "deserves" their bad press, and who doesn't.
- Alaska Jack
Max -
I've heard this sort of argument before, and though I too consider myself a libertarian, I must disagree with the basic thesis.
Most often I hear the argument from leftists, regarding the economy. "Sure," they'll say, "social and political reporting may be liberally biased, but economic reporting is conservatively biased, since it never questions the fundamental approach of the free market or capitalism. By acting like the free market is the only viable approach, they tacitly endorse it."
The problem I have with this argument is this: It's not the media's role to "question" *anything*. The media's role is to report the way things are, and the fact is, we do have a capitalist economy. It's *our* job to "question" things.
Remember, I'm on your side here, so don't get too defensive. I'm hugely critical of the mainstream media. I just disagree with the idea that it's their job to "question" things.
- Alaska Jack
PS One note: You say "both the left and the right operate on the assumption that forced government schooling is a good thing." I can't speak for the left, but on the right, this issue is a HUGE question. Many believe that the government does indeed have a mandate to see that our children are educated -- they just don't think that means it has to be the government *itself* doing the educating. FWIW.
Just a comment (informative I hope) about AllOfMP3.com. Yes you can choose your format, but a lot of people seem to be under the impression that all those formats are encoded off the original source. They're not. Almost all their stuff is re-encoded from 384 kbps MP3 files. Some stuff is available encoded straight from CD (their so-called "online exclusive" stuff), but the vast majority is not.
You might know this already, but I was surprised to learn it.
Also, some of their stuff not available via online encoding: in other words, only have a single choice of formats/encodings, usually 192 kbps MP3. I don't know if those selections were taken right off the CDs, or if they too were transcoded from 384 kbps. Anyone know for sure?
- Alaska Jack
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.
6. Given all that, it still may not be your cup of tea; an opinion to which you are, of course, entirely entitled.Cheers,
- Alaska Jack
* I highly recommend actually doing this. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
Well, there is a lot I could say about all that, but instead I'll simply fall back to my original point: If you think Bush is a crappy president based on things he's doing *now*, that's your perogative. I simply don't think people care about Bush's *past*, since he is not running based on it, and has already admitted he was not a very good guy.
- Alaska Jack
A fair and even-handed post. But let me add a couple of thoughts.
..."
1. "For the most part no one wants to know about the exploits of anyone else's penis unless they're scripted and in a porno movie"
Or they involve a man in a position of power taking advantage of a subordinate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Lewinsky was some sort of naive ingenue. But it is precisely these sort of relationships that were of great concern to a large segment of the feminist establishment -- at least, until one involved a president they liked.
As a side note, if Clinton had dallied with ML and then just come clean about it, it would have been disgraceful, but he wouldn't have been impeached. It's an important point that seems to be glossed over a lot these days. Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with an intern; he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and tampering with witnesses. Of those things he was certainly guilty -- he survived the Senate vote not because he was innocent, but simply because Senate Democrats didn't feel it would be good for the party if one of their presidents were removed (and yes, tragically, I'm sure most Senate Republicans would have done the same thing if it had been their man).
2. No one is suggesting we "pat [Bush] on the back."
3. There is, of course, a major difference between these two patterns of behavior: Bush stopped, and pretty much reformed his whole life; Clinton never stopped. (Until, of course, he was caught, and even then he denied it and had his surrogates paint Lewinsky as a demented stalker. Just think: If Lewinsky had just washed that blue dress, this would still be the official story, and a lot of people would be energetically defending it and insisting that nutcase Lewinsky made the whole thing up.)
4. 'He doesn't seem to be a good president but we're just okay with that?"
To the contrary, you are welcome to think he is the worst president in history, and try to make that case to others. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My point was simply that I believe it was and is a mistake to try to persuade others that Bush is a bad president simply by pointing to what he did or didn't do 30 years ago. It's not that people haven't listened; it's that they HAVE listened, digested the input, and decided it doesn't matter.
5. "the Republicans are willing to use any point of contention to decry the value of a president
I don't follow you here. I'm not trying to be snotty -- I really don't understand what you mean.
6. We agree that the WoD is a pretty stupid use of our resources.
Cheers,
- Alaska Jack
In a nutshell, your post encapsulates why liberals have done such a poor job of turning people off from Bush.
Let me explain myself using a short sentence of one-syllable words: NO ONE CARES.
Bush has acknowledged many times that he wasn't a very good human being at an earlier stage of his life. By all accounts, he has changed: Even his political enemies in Texas acknowledge that he made a remarkable mid-life turnaround. He seems to sincerely believe that he was saved by turning to Jesus. Now, that might make you gag, and that's fine. But the point is, HE believes it, and there's simply no evidence of insincerity on this point.
The difference between him and Kerry is that Bush is not running based on who he was or what he did as a young man. On the other hand, Kerry is, and for good reason: That's all he really has to offer. Beyond his four-month service in Vietnam, he has a twenty-year record of relatively undistinguished service in the U.S. Senate, representing a small, liberal Northeast State. This is not a particularly harsh critique, but it neither is it a a recipe for electoral success, and he and his advisors know it.
Incidentally, I DO count Kerry's service in Vietnam as a small plus. It's just not enough to constitute the majority of his campaign platform.
To sum up:
Bush: No one cares about his actions as youth, because he a) has already acknowledged his failings, and b) is not basing his campaign on them anyway.
Kerry: People do care about his actions as a youth, because he a) is basing his campaign on them, and b) has not been forthcoming when parts of his record have been questioned.
- Alaska Jack
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
Just a sort of small correction:
You say Kos "had a quick but unfortunately wrong analysis of the now-thoroughly-discredited Rather memos."
This isn't quite accurate. "Fortune" implies some sort of luck was involved. But in actuallity, Kos mounted a furious and quite deliberate defense of something that he passionately believed should have been true. He was sure that anyone who believes anything different from what *he* believes must be a lying scumbag, and that attitude caused him to insist that his version of reality was true, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
This contrasts with the behavior I saw on most conservative blogs. Even those who doubted the memos seemed to take pains to mention that there was still a dwindling chance they *could* be real. (Of course, they also noted that even if the memos *did* turn out to be real, Rather and CBS still came out of the whole thing looking terrible).
- Alaska Jack
I'm not an expert on the Palestinian/Arab conflict, and don't pretend to be. Also, I doubt anything I could say here would change your mind in the slightest. Nevertheless, allow me to make a few points. (UPDATE - This has turned into my longest post ever :^[ But at least it gave me the chance to think about the situation a little more than I had previously.)
1. First, a point about the United Nations. People who don't know very much about it, or how it works, seem to think it has some sort of moral authority, acting for the common good of all mankind.
However, it has been pointed out many times that a more accurate term than "United Nations" would be "United Regimes." Governments from all over the world -- many or most of them unelected, and many with absolutely appalling human rights records (see, for example, the Arab states) -- come together to argue for their own interests. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not totally dismissing it. The U.N. can serve as a useful forum for nations to hash out their differences. But to think it has any sort of moral authority is absolutely laughable to anyone who actually knows how it works.
Now, a "League of Democracies" -- that might actually have some moral authority. But of course, it would include Israel, and not a single Arab country.
2. I may have my history wrong, but I seem to remember the UN's 1948 resolution calling for separate states for both Jews and Palestinians. The Arab countries responded to this UN resolution by stating they would never accept a Jewish state, then banding together and attacking it.
3. I kind of agree with Alan Dershowitz (and believe me, I feel queasy saying that) on this. Every dispute about this matter always ends up with history being debated. It always boils down to a he-said-she-said involving people who are long dead and who were hardly impartial to begin with. The fact is that, on many of the historical questions, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH. We just pick a side that seems most sympathetic to us, and decide to accept all their claims while rejecting all the others'.
So I've come to the conclusion that the PAST DOESN'T MATTER, at least to the extent that we cannot allow it to constrain our actions in the present. What matters is crafting a solution that will work for the future.
In that, the link you provide is just another dismal example of why we will never see peace in the region. Like I said, I am not an expert. But to refresh my memory about the Barak peace deal I relied on the International Herald Tribune, CNN International and other relatively reputable sources of facts. You, on the other hand, pick a 100% pro-Palestinian site that rages against Israel. The settlement blocs "are like daggers tearing into the flesh of the future Palestinian state"? Give me a break. The site first admits that the Barak deal went further than any other, than immediately starts to quibble. It's not "exactly" 92 percent. This provision is unacceptable. That provision is not open to negotiation.
But in the big picture, THAT'S THE PROBLEM -- THERE ARE TOO MANY THINGS THE PA CALLS UNACCEPTABLE. There WILL NOT BE PEACE until the PA recognizes that Israel is not just going to go away, and that it has to negotiate resolutions to some of these problems. I know that the "right of return," for example, is a big one, but the REALITY of the situation is that Israel is just not going to sign something that everybody knows would be its suicide note. It is foolish to think it would. On the other hand, whether the Arabs have "guardianship" or "control" or "functional autonomy" or whatever over this neighborhood or that neighborhood is not a death sentence for Palestine. Those things should be open to negotiation, and on some things, the Palestinians are going to have to settle for less than they want. But Arafat never even tried to negotiate. It's been widely reported that he made no counteroffer, and indeed barely even spoke during the negotiations.**
4. Were the British govern
I love Scotland! Don't get me wrong -- I've never been there. But it sounds fantastic, especially Northern Scotland. Everyone says the weather is terrible, but I grew up in Alaska, so it sounds great to me! It's on my list of places I absolutely must visit.
Having re-read both your posts and mine, I am quite comfortable with my points. No point in dragging this out.
Cheers!
- AJ