Links and Minifeatures 01 23 Monday

Carnivals:



Carnival of Investing Recommended: Interview with Ben Stein (the actual interview only), Fred Fry International (good information on margin accounts), Wealth Junkie



Carnival of Debt Reduction Recommended: Below the Beltway



Carnival of The Capitalists. Recommended: Gongol, May It Please the Court, Marketplace Monitor



Carnival of Personal Finance. Recommended: Insureblog, Personal Financial Advice (read the comments, also!), Retire at 30



RINO Sightings. Recommended: Respectful Insolence, Decision '08

**********



Our president says something that needs to be said. Surveillance is necessary. Actually, non-surveillance is suicidal.



On the other hand, Donkeys paint themselves as weak on national security. John McCain defends unnamed individuals on the Democratic side (likely Joe Lieberman and a few low key centrists that are still Democratic, at least in name). John Kerry goes over the top again (too bad he couldn't lead troops in actual battle like that).



Protein Wisdom has more.



**********



Wizbang has some very rational debunking of the latest attempted smear on the President regarding Jack Abramoff. Clue to the sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome: The money Abramoff gave the President's campaign was legal, nor is the president accused of lobbying congress or any congresscritter on Abramoff's behalf or that of his clients. Trying to amplify the Abramoff scandal beyond its scope will guarantee that the Donkey officeholders who are treating it as not their problem will get burned.



**********



Vodkapundit is right on with his analysis of a NY Post article with Ms. Rice reforming the State Department. Not "Did she go too far?" but "can she get far enough in the next three years that her successor cannot immediately undo the changes?" State, along with CIA and a few other agencies, has become a time-server's paradise. It needs to become results oriented.



**********



Q and O makes a point that cannot be made too often: that there are no such thing as inalienable rights. All rights are a function of how much value society places upon them versus upon the value to society of not having them. This being demonstrably true, let's focus on preserving rights that are important, like the first and second amendments, and worry less about a woman's right to pre-birth infanticide which, whatever your viewpoint on the matter, is not enshrined in the text of the Constitution. The more effort you spend on "penumbras" and such, the less will be available for the really critical stuff, like the first two actual amendments.



**********



Mudville Gazette tells a story of part of her ransom money being found on released German hostage Susanna Osthoff, and goes on to discuss the terrorist who was released in exchange for her. You know, it sure looks like there's enough reason to investigate the possibility of a set-up here.



Belmont Club has more worth reading on this subject, and on the fundamental disconnect of the apologists.



**********



Lileks Screed has a dose of common sense rationality on the Iranian situation.



The suggestion that's made the most sense to me, however, is Bill Quick's from a couple days ago: Attack, destroy the Iranian military (along with any bomb making capability) and leave. No dealing with civil unrest, no "insurgency", no Iranian Al-Qaeda. Very cold-blooded, and you can be sure that the hard left would be demanding President Bush do what they damned him for doing in Iraq, but it would be within our capabilities and keep the difficulties from becoming significant.



On a related note, Iraq the Model has a masterful essay on a certain irrational priest and lost opportunities.



**********



Dean's World has a thoughtful article about blogging and such as opposed to journalism, specifically the attitudinal weaknesses of journalism.



For myself, the real issue I have with most traditional journalists is just that they get it wrong. As in "They Have Not The Slightest Clue What They Are Talking About." I've been present for, or been involved in the aftermath of various nationally important news stories, as well as several others of local import. I cannot recall one story where they even got the majority of the critical elements correct. Perhaps this is the paper's fault, as it doesn't take the time to develop a reporter who has the opportunity to become informed on a particular topic. Perhaps a certain portion of the blame goes to the individual journalists, who don't ask the experts what's really important, and in at least one case, wasn't interested in the most salient details.



Then, when I went into financial planning, I found that the newspapers weren't interested in getting that right, either. They were interested in writing their articles to sell more papers and more advertising. "Disinterested guardians of the public interest"? I think not. Jokers out to sell themselves is more like it. Much as I despise Bill Clinton, he's a piker at self-promotion compared to most traditional media.



**********



Asymmetrical Information has a wonderful column debunking most of the hype about abortion and prophylactics and education.



**********



Captain's Quarters has a thoughtful article on impromptu censorship practiced by the left.



Michelle Malkin has more.



Anytime you see censorship, or anyone attempting to justify censorship, look them right in the eye and demand "What are you afraid of?" Do not allow the conversation to go anywhere else until you have an answer to that question. There is nowhere else for it to go. The only reason for censorship is fear.



Needless to say, it stops them dead. You won't convince them - they wouldn't have a need for censorship of opposing views if they had an answer or an open mind. But it's very weighty for onlookers.



It's very illuminating that the left has been engaging in the same tactics it derides as "McCarthyism!" for at least the last twenty-five years. I started college in 1978, and it was going on then. Time has only made them bolder.



**********



Looks like Victor Davis Hanson is on the side of accountability as well, as regards the UCLA Alumni monitoring of lecturers.



**********



HT to Michael Barone for this link to David Warren Online



I am definitely curious to know how the Canadian elections are coming today. I haven't mentioned anything like how the polls are showing the conservatives getting a solid plurality, because the only poll that really matters is taking place today in the election booths. I don't know how "dirty" canadian polls are - whether they are as clean as possible or Richard Daley Chicago dirty. I do suspect that any tricks the liberals can think of, they will try. Look at how long they fought what was obviously a losing battle to keep their governing majority, when the smarter thing would have been to go limp and resign. I also don't know nearly enough about Canadian politics to make a prediction - only enough about realpolitik to know that Canadian politics of the last twenty years has been basically about the power of Denial, as in "We're not Americans!". Not that they are, but they've gotten so obsessed about the giant south of the 49th parallel that they've kind of lost themselves and their collective common sense in the bargain. One hopes today signals the start of a return to reality.



Captain's Quarters will be liveblogging, if you care for that sort of thing.