Our link-fest offering readers links to blog posts from websites of many different viewpoints. Linked posts do NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
HAS A L.A. TIMES COLUMNIST “BORROWED” FROM A BLOG POST AND NOT ATTRIBUTED IT? Some think so.
ARE BLACKS THE MOST ANTI-SEMITIC FOLKS IN AMERICA? Booker Rising sees some serious problems in a recent survey.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH OUR MEDIA? Bill Moyers has some ideas and fears it’s getting worse.
Bush derangement, Americaphobia, and unpatriotism is put under the microscope by Dean’s World’s Aziz HERE (and don’t let the title of the post scare you off — it’s a very interesting read).
IS SAUDI ARABIA A WORLD HUB FOR TERROR? A lot of weblogs are commenting on this article that says it is. The Glittering Eye says this:
I’m afraid the position of the Bush Administration with respect to the KSA is what it is for the same reason that so many of their other policies are what they are: they don’t know what else to do.
The options for dealing with the KSA are extremely limited. There are no military options. If any action were likely to antagonize the world’s Muslims, it would be a U. S. invasion or attack on the KSA. Economic leverage is equally problematic. As lowest-cost supplier the KSA influences the world price of oil more than any other country and, consequently, has a substantial ability to influence the U. S. economy. This would be just as true if the U. S. didn’t buy a penny’s worth of oil from the KSA. Those here who long for energy independence are engaged in futile daydreaming. We could achieve energy self-sufficiency (by consuming no more than we produced) but even that would not achieve energy independence.
Read it all.
In some ways, the U.S. has been in the same position (to a certain extent) that it has been with Pakistan. The U.S. NEEDS Pakistan and Pakistan has played ball with the U.S. just enough — but not completely (bin Laden and his cronies are widely reported to be in Pakistan’s remote areas and don’t have much to fear from a big Pakistani government invasion). This piece about Saudi Arabia is hardly a huge revelation — there have been others like it (and we have linked to them).
But it underscores the fact that for all the official talk about “good” and “evil” there is relativism and nuance in the way the administration formulates policy.
In some cases (if a judgment is made on U.S. national interests, factors are weighed and prioritized), the administration looks the other way and insists it isn’t. In others it uses a strict, no-compromise standard. The Glittering Eye is probably seeing things correctly (it often does, which is why it so glitters) — hat the administration is locked into something where the U.S. needs Saudi Arabia so it does a kind of by-the-seat-of-your pants (or robe) explanation when these issues are raised.
The lesson: nuance may be a nice thing to decry or ridicule on talk radio or in political campaigns, but even the people who sneer at nuance use…nuance (if it suits their purpose).
SPEAKING OF PAKISTAN, Blogs For Bush’s Mark Noonan writes:
I really can’t say what is the best course of action for Musharraf; nor can I say what is the best course of action for the United States in this situation. I can only be certain that the Islamists must not take control is Pakistan – and when I mean “must not”, I mean that if Musharraf were to fall to an Islamist revolution, we’d immediately have to intervene. Given the practical realities, our only recourse is to urge Musharraf to as quickly as possible restore democratic institutions and, meanwhile, just go slow and tread carefully.
That’s actually from all indications precisely what policy is. And it’s the kind of policy almost any American administration — Republican OR Democratic — would have due to American national interests. Sometimes there’s a conflict between what the State Department wants and what the Defense Department wants…but it’s unlikely that there is on this one (so far).
THE 100 MOST INFLUENTIAL LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES. A link to and discussion of the fascinating list is HERE. We note that Senator Larry Craig is on one of the lists. Shouldn’t he have been at the Toilet Summit in India? (Be SURE to read the post on that by TMVer Swaraaj Chauhan from India.)
Another thought: A list that has the most 100 influential liberals and conservatives? Shouldn’t Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton be on BOTH of them? (We threw that in for the readers who think Rudy is a RINO and Clinton is a DINO or a MINO…moderate in name only…or a LINO…liberal in name only. Actually, the way our political campaigns go, we could use a BEANO.)
WHAT’S THE FUTURE OF INDUSTRY? Some thoughts from San Diego’s Doug Wolfe.
AND WILL TECHNOLOGY HAVE AN INCREASING INFLUENCE ON POLITICS? A good starting point on that is HERE.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU….in The Netherlands (too).
TAKE A BREAK FROM YOUR SUNDAY READING (but DO stick with TMV) AND LISTEN TO A PODCAST on the book The Daring Book For Girls:
The book teaches girls how to change a tire, run a lemonade stand, negotiate a salary and lots more. The authors discuss if kids are active enough today, women spies, advice on boys and whether or not Hillary Clinton is a “daring girl.”
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.