Around the Web on 8-31-06

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Today's goal: terse, but still worthwhile.

Subman Dave takes a look at a case in New York where a man was arrested for making enemy broadcasts over American airwaves.

As any reasonable person knows, First Amendment rights to free speech aren't absolute. Besides the most obvious non-protected examples of obscene and libelous speech, there are other recognized exemptions, most notably in this case threats and sedition. I know the latter has seemingly fallen out of favor of late (how else can you explain groups that honestly support, advocate and reward mutinous action by members of our Armed Forces without consequence) and, coming from a foreign source the term "sedition" may not be strictly accurate, but should there be a compulsion for any government to allow open broadcast by its enemies? You can't fault Hezbollah for trying, but neither should one fault the U.S. government for putting a stop to it when discovered.
I mostly agree with this, although I would re-phrase the first sentence, replacing "aren't absolute" with "don't exist in a vacuum". And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is yet another example of why we ought to have a war declaration. (And now that I think of it, here's another: We can't prosecute treason without one.)

Isaac Schrodinger considers a case in Malaysia, which allows Moslems to be governed by Sharia, of a woman who left Islam. "The non-Muslims who welcomed dual laws likely did so for peace and harmony. What they really did is give Sharia the chance to entrench itself."

Cox and Forkum recently posted a cartoon which nicely summarizes the message we ought to be sending to the Middle East.

They also have posted their latest cover for The Intellectual Activist, along with some commentary on developments in Iran. I thank them for including my post, "Is the 'Doomsday Clock' stuck?" as an update and, of course, for all the extra traffic!

Mike N has been posting some really good stuff lately. Be sure to read "Government Worship", in which he critiques an article from the print edition of the Detroit Free Press called "Learn the right Katrina lesson."
[I]f you're thinking that the human disaster that was New Orleans is proof of governments' failure and inefficiency, you just get those thoughts out of your mind right now.

"...we had better accept that good government is essential and start looking forward to getting things right."

Good government to me means protecting people's individual rights. To sirs Witt and Stier it obviously means providing for people's needs, not rights. But what is meant by 'getting things right?'
And speaking of government-worship....

Diana Hsieh
notes that California is one signature away -- the signature of a very inconsistent advocate of capitalism, to put it very charitably -- from socialized medicine.
As for the likelihood of a veto, the article also reports, "Schwarzenegger's office said it had no official position on the bill. The governor has said he would propose solutions to the state's health care crisis in his State of the State address next January if he is re-elected."
The very fact that Schwartzenegger can even appear to be testing the winds on an issue like this -- despite immigrating here to escape socialism -- doesn't inspire my confidence one bit.

Amit Ghate reports on a very good conference in Boston this October called "The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response".
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum
Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Flemming Rose, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch
Peter Schwartz, author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America
John Lewis, assistant professor of history, Ashland University
Wow! That line-up is solid from top to bottom! He provides a link for those lucky souls who might get a chance to go.

The Intellectual Watchman reports on a new way to donate for those who would like to give to charity more often:
Goodsearch [is] a Yahoo-based search engine which will make a donation to a charity of your choice for every time you use it to search [and the] Ayn Rand Institute is one of the organizations you can select to donate to! Say no more!
Okay, then!


The Undercurrent has posted portions of its September issue.

Martin Lindeskog has a nice post on Lee Sandstead's recent visit to Stockholm.
I learned plenty of things from Lee Sandstead's lectures on art. They gave me great inspiration to explore more works of art in the future. We are already planning for next year's event. It will be on art works displayed at the Furstenberg Gallery at the Gothenburg Museum of Art.
He includes a photo of Genius of Telegraphy.

Software Nerd laments the fact that our Founding Fathers did not discuss war as extensively as they did so many other aspects of government.
Unfortunately, there was no ... framework [like the Constitution and its supporting political theory] in foreign policy to guide government action. Consequently, the U.S. has acted with varying temporal rules, as suited the current mood of her democratic opinion or her government. It is not that the principles were wrong; rather, there were no principles.
I wonder whether he or the Kalamazoo Objectivist has read Peter Schwartz's The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest. After hearing a review of it, in which it was called "the 'Strunk and White' of foreign policy", I was intrigued and ordered it.

As it turns out, it's even cheaper than The Elements of Style, which I highly recommend!

John Stark wonders about an issue I saw quite awhile back on an "Idiot Bumper Sticker": will Katrina sink Bush in 2006?
[F]or the media, and much of "Blue America," a hurricane is just a way to try to score political points. Just the fact that they're wondering if it will "defeat" or "sink" Bush [in some weird, unspecified way] without mentioning the millions of people who are currently trying to kill us just strikes me as a huge non-sequitur. I can't believe that anyone can take these guys seriously, and it's one reason why I can't watch TV news.
His title asks, rhetorically, "Are they really this clueless?"

Bothenook (with whom I would have fought in World War II*) posts a hilarious email.
If you ever feel compelled to "mug" yourself with a taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one-second burst when you zap yourself. You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. A three second burst would be considered conservative.

-- CAV

* Full results:
You scored as Poland. Your army is Poland's army. Your tenacity will form a concept in the history of your nation and you're also ready to continue fighting even if your country is occupied by the enemy. Other nations that are included in this category are Greece, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands.

British and the Commonwealth






France, Free French and the Resistance




United States






Soviet Union


In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
created with

The Anglophile in me is disappointed by having barely not been British in a tie-breaker -- but he takes solace in knowing that such a result is a legitimate British fate!


Anonymous said...

Thanks for linking up, Gus!

Since Trey and I linked to Goodsearch, the number of search/donations to the ARI has gone up significantly. Here's hoping we can get a real "thing" going here!

P.S. I got the following:

"You scored as United States.

Your army is the American army. You want your home front to support the G.I.'s in their pursuit to liberate world from more or less evil tyrants."


Gus Van Horn said...

That's good news, Inspector! Thanks for mentioning that site.