First, a correction to my previous post. Josh informed me in the comments that the quote attributed to Gen. Hawley never in fact happened; however, he once addressed many of the fake stories attributed to him and gave what would have been his responses, and they are excellent.
Violence begets violence: It's true. Violence does beget violence. But sometimes there is no alternative but to confront those who would perpetrate evil acts against us. This is one of those times. We are blessed to have courageous men and women willing to put their lives on the line to track down and annihilate those who have been so imbued with evil as to be beyond redemption. But violence is not a strategy. It is a necessary and fully justified reaction to an unimaginable threat. But it is not a strategy. If we are to win this war, we must defeat the Mullahs. And to defeat the Mullahs, we must find ways to separate them from their uneducated flocks. We cannot kill all those who have been taught to hate us, nor should we wish to. Far better to change their minds than to change their state of being.I think just about everyone can agree to that.
I was perusing a number of blogs that I normally don't or have just started to check out tonight, and found that MentalBlog had the video of three incredible presentations from the 2006 TED (Technology Entertainment Design) convention, which hosts just a thousand people (re: geniuses) every year - and until this year, kept their material hush-hush. Check out this presentation on education by Sir Ken Robinson. About every 2 minutes or so, he says something that is quite profound - the rest is just excellent. Also worth seeing are this fascinating one on statistics, world poverty, health, and a ton of other stuff by Hans Rosling; and this one which is really just cool - a completely new way of designing and building a massive project by Joshua Prince-Ramus. Guaranteed that you won't feel like you wasted your time watching any of the three. Just to prove it, I'm embedding Robinson's here. In case you're wondering why I'm not linking to anything about Israel (so far), it's simply because there's too much. Look around, you'll find some excellent stuff. My personal recommendations: Meryl Yourish, Jameel @ Muqata, and Dave (IsraellyCool). If you're in need of a rant, Back of the Hill has a great one.
As an aside... Robert Novak was finally able to talk about what really happened in the "Plame case", and the first thing he stated was a slap in the face to many on the left: Nobody in the administration gave him Plame's name in order to discredit Joe Wilson. Shocked? Not me...
Scraps has a very nice poem. I think the first line is what many bloggers feel on a regular basis...
Frum With Questions wonders why Orthodox organizations are so incredibly not [organized], especially when compared to similar ones that are not religious. What's so hard?
Ozzie wonders why the blogosphere has ignored the Mumbai bombings.
EDIT3: Argh. On a roll... Baleboosteh has a hilarious comment from her 6-year old.
That's all for today... Enjoy!
Maybe not to discredit joe wilson, but to out plame...
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_novak
As an aside... Robert Novak was finally able to talk about what really happened in the "Plame case", and the first thing he stated was a slap in the face to many on the left: Nobody in the administration gave him Plame's name in order to discredit Joe Wilson. Shocked? Not me...
ReplyDeleteShocked that Novak would say something to support this administration? Um, no.
Thanks for the link. Yawp!
ReplyDeleteI linked Jameel for Israel news; Olah Chadasha is also keeping a running update.
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting me in the roundup! :) Glad you liked.
TTC - Are you kidding me? That's one of the most slanted articles I read. They're basically saying "Plame was outed!" which has nothing to do with Novak, then saying that Novak said Rove was his source.
ReplyDeleteJA - Why? Because he originally wrote the story that discredited Wilson? I don't find that Novak is this big rightie - he's just a disappointment to the left who's not used to a reporter not toeing the anti-administration line.
Ozzie, Scraps - You're welcome!
No, he really is a "big rightie." Not that wikipedia is gospel, but this sums it up well:
ReplyDelete"Novak has been frequently criticized as acting as a political operative of the Republican Party while posing as a journalist; his controversial public comments and actions both on and off the air have provoked critics from many groups." See, e.g., his involvement with the Vince Foster nonsense.
And I remember this moment clearly from when it happened:
In March 2004, Novak insinuated on CNN's Crossfire that Richard Clarke had revealed government mistakes in his book dealing with the war against terrorism because he resented Condoleezza Rice's position as a black woman on the cabinet.
During a dialogue with Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanuel Novak had this to say:
Novak: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?
Emanuel: Say that again?
Novak: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?
Emanuel: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.
He's not a reporter, he's a Republican/paleocon stooge willing to engage in the worst kind of propagandizing.
JA - You want me to give you the questions that other reporters ask? The questions are far more to the left than this is to the right... and while many of the reporters are in fact very left, not all of them are.
ReplyDeleteIt's also not like Novak never criticizes the administration.
Thanks for mentioning my post Ezzie!
ReplyDeleteNP ;)
ReplyDelete