Favorite Political Blogs?

[Aaron]

Mine by far is http://crooksandliars.com

What are your favorite political blogs that you read?

[Smith Comma John]

Originally posted by Aaron
Mine by far is http://crooksandliars.com

What are your favorite political blogs that you read?

oooh, that one is good. i'm not really a blog person though.

[Kinbote]

http://www.cominganarchy.com
http://blog.mises.org/blog/

[XenonDreams]

www.reason.com/hitandrun
www.janegalt.com (net?
www.dynamist.com
www.nationalreview.com (not that i really buy into their line)


my most favoritest blog isn't really political, but because it is economics, it does obviously hit on politics at times:

www.marginalrevolution.com

makes me wish i had picked econ for a major! and while, yeah, i like it cuz they're free market types, there's just so much cool shit they apply economics too. just a great blog.

www.cultureby.com <---interesting stuff mostly about marketing....because marketing can actually be interesting when its thought about as the juxtaposition of anthropology and economics

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by XenonDreams


www.marginalrevolution.com


Ooh, I liked that one.

[floatingdown]

http://www.thesmirkingchimp.com is pretty good...or at least amusing...

[negatifzeo]

Originally posted by Aaron
Mine by far is http://crooksandliars.com

What are your favorite political blogs that you read?

Crooks and liars does rock. Also:

www.salon.com Their Daou Report, or whatever it's called, is sweet. Nice side by side comparison of what the popular right and left wing blogs are saying.

www.americablog.com

www.dailykos.com

[Hi There, Am Pam]

http://www.michellemalkin.com/



Nah, I'm just kidding. She's a fucking idiot.


I actually use to read http://www.alternet.org when I had the time, but haven't so much because of so many responsibilities. I found it to be the most fascinating news articles.

[negatifzeo]

Originally posted by Hi There, Am Pam
http://www.michellemalkin.com/



Nah, I'm just kidding. She's a fucking idiot.


I actually use to read http://www.alternet.org when I had the time, but haven't so much because of so many responsibilities. I found it to be the most fascinating news articles.

I used to read AlterNet. They had good posts here and there, but a lot of their posts were just a little bit crazy. Extremist and radical. I'm a fan of the middle ground I guess. Once you go too far left or right, the people just get nuts.

[Hi There, Am Pam]

Yeah, it's basically a collection of Blogged articles (or from other sources). While some are incredibly insightful, there are often some people who are just reactionary, like, say Michelle Malkin. It's kind of good though, simply because it reminds you to be objective as possible, and not necessarily believe everything you read just because it matches your ideology.

I often don't care for middle ground, unless they truly are objective. Associated Press, for example, is supposed to be middle ground, but they're fairly stupid and formuliac. Not to mention that they tend to not report on a lot of important issues, like global exploitation, for example.

[vordabois]

I'm definitely not a middle grounder in terms of ideology, but in terms of politics, I am middle ground... Like, all parties should be represented and not restricted. Even though there are an awful lot of conservatives/liberals who wish the death of the Democratic/Republican Party, I can't really take it that far.

In that vein, I've always always loved Fareed Zakaria's articles in Newsweek. Some of them are just phenomenal. His books are great, too. They're all posted online, in a sort-of blog, but not really: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/archive.html

We don't even see things the same way all the time (he was generally supportive of action in Iraq, for example), but his work is so grounded that you can't help but respect it. I especially love the things he's had to say about the Bush Administration recently. He hits the nail on the head so many times that it's pretty saddening that he's not an advisor to Bush. Truthfully, something tells me that Bush wouldn't want him around. Why would he start listening to real reasonable objection and advice now? :-p

A point he made a while back... Bush and his friends made fun of Kerry for being a "flip-flopper", but being a "flip-flopper" is what our president sometimes must be in times like these. The only way for us to achieve our goals is to modify or reverse them. Lincoln did it. Roosevelt did it. Washington did it. That's an option that we've used throughout history to secure our objectives, yet it was cast in a negative light before the last election. Since even before election day, Bush has flip-flopped all over the place... Yet somehow they managed to turn that on Kerry? And people bought it? :rolleyes: ("Hail to the Flip-Flopper" (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/021405.html), Newsweek, February 14th, 2005)

He's also a Muslim. This adds a really interesting twist to his work in that it assumes (properly) that Islam is not a religion meant for war. He derides those who deserve derision... "Islamists". His very existance adds a weighty counter-point to this American popular opinion that Muslims -- no matter how peaceful they claim to be -- are somehow inherently violence-prone and incapable of acting on logic.

For those of you who watch the Daily Show on Comedy Central, he's been a guest at least twice. He's the Editor of Newsweek International and former managing editor of the Foreign Affairs dept., and his articles are always the first thing I turn to when I pick up Newsweek.

He did this amazing article in Newsweek (August 23rd, 2004) called "Why Kerry is Right On Iraq" (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/082304.html). An excerpt:

John Kerry isn't being entirely honest about his views on Iraq. But neither is President George W. Bush. "Knowing what we know now," Bush asked, "would [Kerry] have supported going into Iraq?" The real answer is, of course, "no." But that's just as true for Bush as for Kerry. We now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Is Bush suggesting that despite this knowledge, he would still have concluded that Iraq constituted a "grave and gathering threat" that required an immediate, preventive war? Please. Even if Bush had come to this strange conclusion, no one would have listened to him. Without the threat of those weapons, there would have been no case to make to the American people or the world community. There were good reasons to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, but it was the threat of those weapons that created the international, legal, strategic and urgent rationale for a war. There were good reasons why intelligence agencies all over the world—including those of Arab governments—believed that Saddam had these weapons. But he didn't.

The more intelligent question is, given what we knew at the time, was toppling Saddam's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes, Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject. (cont...)

(I was going to put up his article "The Arrogant Empire" (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/032403.html) [March 24th, 2003], which is worth a read, but this one, I thought, was better.)