Eye on the Watcher’s Council

As you may know the members of the Watcher’s Council each nominate one of his or her own posts and one non-Council post for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week’s Council nominations is here.

With the sad departure of Done With Mirrors from the Watcher’s Council there’s a spot available. If you have a blog of your own, please consider applying for a position. If you’ve applied before try again. The rules and responsibilities are here.

Rhymes With Right, “Democrats Object To Fundamentally True Statement ”

Greg posts on the Obama-Ayers connection and the McCain campaign’s treatment of the subject. Quite a number of the Council members have posted on this topic this week. Here’s my take: it’s more important than Obama supporters are making it out to be, less important than his opponents wish it were, and everybody is ignoring the real significance. Sen. Obama doesn’t share ideology or principles with Mr. Ayers because Sen. Obama has no ideology and his principles aren’t really very well known at this point. I think that a nebulous sort of “fairness” is one of them but how that will be worked out in practice noone can say at this point. Ayers was just another rung on the ladder and Sen. Obama will show him no more deference or loyalty than that.

The Razor, “Oil Boom Turns to Bust ”

Scott remarks on the passing of high oil prices. One thing I’d like to add: lower oil prices aren’t good news for Russia or Iran. Nor for Iraq.

Joshuapundit, “The Jewish Stockholm Syndrome”

Freedom Fighter acknowledges that the majority of American Jews will in all likelihood vote for Obama and attributes it to the Stockholm Syndrome. I think that it’s more that their mothers would never forgive them if they voted for a Republican. Republicans are evil, after all.

Cheat-Seeking Missiles, “Raile Odinga Joins Ayres, Wright, Alinsky et. al. As Questionable Obama Associates”

Laer notes that Bill Ayers isn’t Barack Obama’s only questionable association. Same remark as above.

The Glittering Eye, “Issues 2008: Reforming Government”

My submission this week, part of my series on the issues, is about the issue that nobody seems to be talking about other than in the vaguest of terms: the urgent need for basic reform in how government functions.

Hillbilly White Trash, “More on the little messiah’s troubling friends”

Lemuel Calhoon, too, is posting on Barack Obama’s past associations and the unfairness of how Sen. Obama is being treated by the media compared to their treatment of Gov. Sarah Palin. She isn’t a member of the club, you know.

Soccer Dad, “Putting on Ayers”

Soccer Dad questions the effectiveness of bringing up Bill Ayers as a campaign strategy. I certainly think it’s a sideshow. To be effective it must be worked into a larger narrative and that has yet to emerge.

The Colossus of Rhodey, “Why “hazard pay” for tough schools won’t work”

The extrinsic rewards must be consistent with the intrinsic rewards of a profession. If “hazard pay” goes to those serving in tough schools will it result in better teachers or greedier ones being there?

Bookworm Room, “A Great Day By The Bay”

Bookworm recounts her visit to the Bonhomme Richard and the history of the name.

Well, I’ve decided which posts I’ll vote for this week. Which posts would get your votes?

5 comments… add one
  • “Sen. Obama doesn’t share ideology or principles with Mr. Ayers because Sen. Obama has no ideology”

    What? How are you making that particular judgement?

  • Observation. An ideologue interprets every policy proposal through an ideological prism. I think that Sen. Obama interprets virtually every policy proposal through a political prism rather than an ideological one. Will it get him votes?

  • Actually there is an ideological perspective that sees everything through the prisim of accruing personal power.

  • I don’t think that’s the way most people use the term and it’s certainly not the way I do. From my perspective socialism, for example, is an ideology. Marxism is an ideology. Objectivism is an ideology. The urge to power isn’t an ideology. It’s a drive.

  • The drive for power absent of any guiding moral principles that define and limit such a pursuit IS an ideology. It might not be a direct analogue to previous ideologies (or maybe it is simply a modern version of ancient tyranny – I’m thinking Plato here) – but it has all the other hallmarks of an ideology.

Leave a Comment