Race against time.

A few blogs have been posting this quote by columnist Mark Steyn:

If I had six or seven centuries to work on things, I wouldn't do it this way in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the "war on terror" is more accurately a race against time - to unwreck the Middle East before its toxins wreck South Asia, West Africa, and eventually Europe.

I saw it at Powerline - "A Race Against Time"

I think that what we fail to forget not only in Iraq, but the Middle East in its entirety is that we, the U.S. and its Allies, are trying to un-do 50, 100, 1000 you pick, years of gridlock, infighting, splits, and religious bastardization.

The Full Steyn Column is here: "I hate to rain on Europe's parade but.."
If you care... there is more below.

A lot of people on the left are calling out with a new cry since the success of the Iraqi elections. "Bush didn't even want them." "It was all Sistani." Wait, someone in IRAQ spoke up and demanded freedom? That is bad? We want to mock it?
Now of course if we look deeper at "WHO" Sistani is... we see maybe why Bush and the US Admin. was worried over a declaration of action from a man like Sistani. He is someone who is not a hardline Iranian style Theocratic ruler, but he is the highest ranking Shia religious figure.

This BBC article outlines his role since the fall of Saddam: "Ayatollah Sistani"

The point is that the US is trying to remove decades of religious pressure, fighting, and deals. What is a good time table for that? I'm sure someone like Sen. Kennedy would say 1 year, but maybe a few years is more likely, and maybe we wont see full democratization for a decade. Even here in America, it took from 1776 to 1787 (1789) to really actualize our full version of a Republic. It's easy to sit back and criticize how Iraq isn't enough like the US yet, but that really isn't the intention of this War.

Steyn said it right:

The obsession of the anti-Americans misses the point: it's not about America. Surely even Fisk and the other "experts" aren't so obtuse that they can't see that the one undeniable fact of the election is that there are millions of Iraqis who want change. That doesn't mean they want to turn Basra and Kirkuk into Cleveland and Buffalo, only that they want something other than the opposing cul-de-sacs of secular pan-Arabist dictatorship and death-cult Islamism, which dead-end alternatives are all the region's had to offer for decades.

Enviro-MENTAL?

"Global Warming is...GOOD!?" One scientist, who in the past has been admonished by the "Enviro-munity" has written another book: "Global Crises, Global Solutions" which may spark a new set of controversies.

What Lomborg claims is that Global Warming is a type of global effect, but it must be placed in the context of the world we live in. He tries to explain that all changes to our environment have both negative effects, but also positive ones, and therefore we must evaluate both when making judgment on the effects of such change.

Wait, What? You mean, we can't simply just FREAK OUT and yell at people for how BAD it is that we affect the environment? Is a scientist really going to tell us, that we can put things into a perspective and not simply make rash generalizations and claims based on a single set of theories?

Here is an excerpt:

"Q: There are advantages to global warming?

A: Absolutely. I come from Denmark, and there it's pretty cold. The environmental assessment of the impact of global warming in Denmark is that overall it will be slightly positive. We'll have better agricultural production. We'll probably have better forestry. We will, however, also have more flash rain. That will be a negative."

More behind the PERMALINK...

Now it wouldn't be fair to assume or even proclaim that this scientist is correct and all others with a more "cynical" view on Global Warming are wrong, but I do think it is important to consider all well founded arguments.

Q: Do you think that global warming, like predicting the weather, is complex and chaotic? Or is there some sort of linear pattern we can take from the data? How do we know which we're dealing with?

A: It makes sense to try and predict it. That's how we've gotten to where we are. We try to use science to understand how things work. But just like we use scientists to be better able, we should also use economists to tell us how much this is going to cost and how much good is it going to do. And that is exactly what the Copenhagen Consensus and my new book is about.
We can do fairly little about global warming at a fairly high cost. Maybe there are other things we'd like to be spending our money on doing first.

Lomborg is essentially trying to ease back on most enviro-claims. It is a responsible approach. I think it could be said as such:

1. If Theory A: "Global Warming will kill us all in 50 years" is '0' on a spectrum, then Theory B: "Global Warming may be helpful" would be '100'
2. We must consider all theories with in the spectrum equal, unless that theory lacks evidence.
3. Other factors must come into our analysis of "course of action" besides simply preservation of current 'Status Quo'.
4. The environment is important to maintain and preserve, but 'Status Quo' levels (@ current time) are not paradigmatic nor is a move into a "worse environmental state" necessarily a solely bad thing.

Like I said, I am not going to go and burn Styro-foam in my back yard for fun, but it does place the environmental debate into a context and more logical approach. It is only fair, and although I know it won't get much "play" it's good to know someone out there is thinking it.

Blog-o-lution.

We all know that Blogging has hit it big time. That is a story of the past.
The new story is this: "When will some Blogs become "Credible" news sources?"

Michelle Malkin wonders if Conservatives will have to break-down barriers in this medium, just like others.

She talks about "Blias"(My word for Blog Bias or when some source takes one blog over another based on bias and lies) in her most recent tag: "Google: Not so fair and balanced."

More behind the PERMALINK (Links to other sites as well)...
I think we all know that certain sites are going to get more credibility from places like Google, before others. Blogs are a scary place... especially when it comes to "credibility issues."

Look at last weeks "Insta-Rage" incident.

I think Mrs. Malkin is right, in that it is probably wrong to consider the DU a news source, but at the same time, a few of the Blogs many of us would consider "news credible" could be suspect as well.

I am not going to name names, but I think for someone like Google, it is really difficult to have a team that sits and determines which BLOGS "make the cut." I would say "Of course throw Michelle and LGF in the mix as legitimate but Google has to look at the big picture, they have to have some possibly, and should err on the side of "NON-Admittance" as opposed to admittance.

But those are just my thoughts..

**UPDATE**: Several people have different takes on this.
Libertarian Girl actually agrees with me.
Say Anything also has a similar take.
Basil's Blog is the funniest though, he offered to become a NEWS WRITER for Michelle so that she can EDIT his stuff out of the news cycle and therefore have an EDITORIAL POLICY on actual NEWS.

BloggeRage

So there is this stupid situation that occurred in the 'sphere (oh no, WHOM do I credit for that word?) not to long ago.
I found out about it on: WizBang!
Let me summarize it as such:

A 13yr old named Austin has a blog, and posts a picture that he got from another blog. He then HAPPENS to be read by a bunch of people and gets linked by InstaPundit.

From there, it gets ugly. This guy Jordan, from a Blog that I won't link cuz I think he has received enough traffic from this, complains FOR Matt (Blogs for Bush).

The contention wasn't even really the USE of the pic, or the non-credit, it was over the TRAFFIC that Austin "STOLE" from Matt. This happened because a "famous" blogger (Glenn Renyolds) posted it on InstaPundit. BLOG TRAFFIC STEALING? I don't think that could even be considered intellectual property?

The long and short of it is, some guy gets a little blog-sessive and freaks out on a 13yr old. It reminds me of some really weird Comic Book Convention where some kid comes up and buys the last of a "Rare comic" and some guy goes bonkers, or maybe one of those role playing tournaments like "Pokemon" or "Magic" where you see some 11 yr old beat a 25yr old and the older guy goes nuts and pulls out a rule book.

I am not saying that we shouldn't follow the "rules," I am all about rules. But where do we draw the line? and When do we choose what rules to follow? I know for a fact that all bloggers stretch the rules when it comes to COPYRIGHT, sure it's all fair use, but in doing so, we can't say it's ok for US in THIS instance, but not in THAT one.

Below are all the links to make sure I am not STEALING anything.

"InstaRage"
"Austins Blog"
"Blogs for Bush"
The Dictionary

The Importance of being a Democracy.

Before Christmas, the Wayne Review reported about the importance of the Ukrainian elections.

The Wayne Review wrote an editorial which stated:
"The situation in the Ukraine is not something remote and detached from what is going on in the rest of the world."

Many people scoffed at this, and some just glanced over it not giving it another thought.

This article: "Iran and China linked to Ukraine Missle Sales" may just explain how important that election was.

Captain Obvious Award

The Captain Obvious Award goes to...

Beautiful Atrocities has the best post, simple, short, and to the point...

Rest behind the link...

Ok the jokes are endless here, the obvious story line is just beyond comprehension. Did it really need to be said? I mean, this was a headline for a good 2 hours on Yahoo.com

Obviously there will be some discussion as to the degree of what the affect will have, yet there is clearly and has always clearly been a causal link.

I know the left is good at Monday Morning Quarterbacking, well so is the right, but come on, is there really a contingent of people out there that read this story and said, "Wow, they are right, this might be bigger than Iraq, Haliburton and Oil!"? Is there?

Evil SUV's Strike AGAIN!!

Attention: ALL SUV owners... remove the engines of your SUV immediately.

SUV need to come with a warning that they make strike at any time and without cause or reason. Drivers are left helpless to their wanton bloodlust and thirst for death and destruction.

Michelle Malkins describes the SUV horrors.

NEWS FLASH: Not a GENOCIDE!

I am smewhat at a loss, but then again, I shouldn't be considering the source.
"UN Delcares Sudan, Not a Genocide"

I am not quite sure what it is then? A civil war? This is the problem with the U.N., we know they are corrupt and dirty, so it's hard to say where their hands and pocket books are. Obviously not on the side of the group that is on the wrong end of the "Non Genocide."

NO RESPECT! (Dangerfield Style.)

I was thinking about the Iraqi elections.

Lots of people said we shouldn't be in Iraq. Their reasons varied. One strong argument MANY made, now I am sure many will claim they never used this argument, is that the people did not want us there and that we were evil occupiers.

I guess almost 8 Million people are wrong. They just figured maybe if they vote we will leave?

Anyways, the funniest thing I've seen so far has been on WIZBANG!

"We're Sorry!"


More behind the cut below...

I think this satire sums it up. There are and were a lot of people that didn't support this election process. Sure Iraq isn't "POOF!" a magical democracy or republic. We aren't talking Club Med. But WMD's, suppression of tyranny, and War on Terror aside, the U.S. minus our political agendas did send brave men and women to a place, and we have helped them forward their struggle for independence, freedom, and liberty. It won't match the U.S. right away, but maybe one day. We can dream can't we? Isn't that the point, that we try and make a better life for our future generations?

Iraqi Voting...

We needed to say something about Iraqi voting.
I couldn't have made a better post than:
Michelle Malking - Iraqi Voting