Today's Links and Minifeatures 2005 07 21 Thursday

China revalues currency. Well, sort of. China is at least forty percent low, and they revalued by about two percent. Malasia pulls the same nonsense. This is the rough equivalent of placing a small bandaid on a severed leg that they are making sure will remain bleeding. This is the economic warfare, on Western society and their own people, that the author was talking about in yesterday's Links and Minifeatures. If they attack Taiwan, I hope that we are ready to respond to overwhelming force. Including some serious bunker busters at Communist Party hide-outs.

**********



Armies of Liberation has an update to yesterday's post. The situation in Yemen is either deteriorating further or improving depending upon one's point of view. Saleh has already agreed not to stand for re-election next year, but it appears that is not enough. (It is to be noted that I'm not certain how much Saleh leaving office means in de facto terms - it could be anything from a public illusion to a true transfer of power.)



**********



Rhymes with Right has a story that the Border Patrol may be considering a civilian auxiliary. The speedy bureaucratic response time of a rock and all the momentum of frozen molasses.



**********



Joe Lieberman (one of the more reasonable Donkeys) says that Roberts isn't an extremist. Yesterday, Harry Reid said he probably wasn't filibuster material, which translates to plain english as "We're trying to find something to derail him on, but haven't been able to." Even Patrick Leahy and Dianne Feinstein seem to be saying they haven't got anything. Barbara 'Blinders' Boxer appears ready to try anyway. (Amazing and disturbing what she said. She's obviously trying to featherbed herself with her Moonbat constituents, because she's not going on to governor or president with that kind of attitude).



Let's see, I've chided both Boxer and Ann Coulter on this, while supporting the candidate. I must be a RINO or something.



Hugh Hewitt has more on Robert's unusual level of qualification, and directs us to a Michael Barone article that seems to confirm my above and prior writings. Since Barone is likely to be the one person with a better overall grasp of U. S. politics than anyone else, it's unlikely I'm too far off base.



Powerline has more illuminating articles on this topic. Volokh Conspiracy notes that "John" is the most common name in Supreme Court history, which I think might be telling us something.



Michelle Malkin has the best and most concise take on the mindset of those opposing the nomination that I've seen.



**********



Great Michael Yon piece on Iraq. (HT: Instapundit)



**********



Normblog has a longer, better version of his Guardian article debunking the approach of most "root cause" apologists. (HT to Instapundit again for the latter).



**********



Referencing my article Monday comparing and contrasting the behavior of Islam and Christianity, here's a tempest in a teapot when someone tried to put an article in Wikipedia about Jizyah, the infidel tax. (HT: LGF)

Jizya



LGF shows us another reason Wikipedia is always of questionable accuracy: Motivations of the contributors may not be purely scientific. Ya think?



**********



Am I the only one disgusted at the ACLU Jihad against Boy Scouts? (HT: LGF again).



Check out Stop the ACLU for more on their activities.



I used to respect the ACLU. Heck, I used to give them money. Sometime in the last twenty years, they've allowed themselves to be hijacked, and to become Useful Idiots. These days, F.I.R.E. is a better place to support.



**********



Commom Sense and Wonder shows us a worthwhile Charles Krauthammer article comparing three major schools of thought. Pay close attention, there will be a test for the rest of your life.





**********



LGF also has articles on Sudanese blatantly ignoring international protocols by assaulting american staff of Secretary Rice. They also ejected any journalists who asked questions about Darfur. Shades of East Germany in the 1960s.



**********



What he said: Captain's Quarters has an entry on the New York Times advocacy of a shield law. A particular shield law. A law meant to give the New York Slimes not only more leverage towards a journalistic monopoly, but unlimited discretion over who they do and do not protect, so they can choose to protect someone who advances the publisher's point of view, and leave another source on the opposite side high and dry. I don't think so. I am unable to find any significant public interest that would be served by a shield law. All it does is make lazy journalists jobs easier. Are journalists in the United States not supposed to be citizens or legal residents, and as such, supposed to be loyal to the interests of society?



The demands of the age mean that society is becoming and needs to become more transparent, not less. The point is to get from the point where everybody thinks they've got something to hide, to where nobody has anything to hide because they can't. We're already a large portion of the way there. We can be spoiled children about our "lost privacy", in which case get ready for more OJ and MJ shenanigans among far worse abuses, or we can be rational adults and deal with the fact that not only are we are all under surveillance but that this is a good thing because it gives us the leverage to commit our own acts of surveillance.



I recommend this book as one worth examining on the subject.



**********



More later if I get the chance.



China supreme court links Yemen John G. Roberts aclu politics media