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.

A position has opened up on the Watcher’s Council. If you have a blog of your own and you’re interested, the rules are here.

The Glittering Eye, “How to Lose Support For a War”

I’m a little puzzled. This is the post I submitted for consideration but for some reason or other The Watcher put another post of mine on the list of nominated posts. I’m working this out with The Watcher. Maybe we’ll keep the one The Watcher listed. Stay tuned.

This post is an analysis of how support for the war in Iraq has been eroded among Walter Russell Mead’s foreign policy influence groups.

American Future, “Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Realists—Part I”

If Marc hadn’t already been a member of the Watcher’s Council this is the post I’d have nominated for non-Council post of the week. In the post Marc does a fine job of systematically analyzing the political players and their positions. I’m eagerly awaiting Part II.

Soccer Dad, “The Problem With Hate Crimes”

Soccer Dad does an interesting analysis of hate crime statistics and hate crime laws. My own view is that there should not be special laws for hate crimes but that the differences between, say, plain old assault and battery and a hate crime should be in the sentencing not in the law itself. Law, like war, is politics by other means and I suppose we have to expect that political positions will be enacted into law. Hate crimes are interest group politics embodied as law.

Done With Mirrors, “After the Next Attack”

This post of Callimachus’s caught my attention when I first read it. As I noted in the comments what he proposes as an alternative strategy in the War on Terror is quite similar to what my own position was in early 2003 (basically, a policy of containment) and I honestly don’t believe it would work much better than what we’ve done so far. But it’s worthy of your consideration.

ShrinkWrapped, “Mythology and War”

ShrinkWrapped unites mythmaking and psychoanalysis to consider the situation of the Palestinians. I agree with his point at least in considering the positions frequently held by Europeans on the issue: as I’ve frequently mentioned here they’re shoehorning a situation rather more complex than they’re making it into a narrative of colonialists and oppressed victims with the Israelis playing the part of the evil colonizers.

The Education Wonks, “Students Making a Mockery of Racial Preferences”

I honestly don’t care much for the “guerrilla theater” approach persuasion of which I think the students’ actions are an example. Honestly, I’m not much for symbolic action generally and in this particular case I think that the injury done to the students themselves by their actions exceeds the benefit of making the point that racial preferences are absurd.

Rhymes With Right, “The Right to Elect a Convicted Felon?”

I’m inclined to think that local people are best equipped to determine the conditions in their own area so if people actually want to allow felons to vote or seek higher office it’s up to them. I also think that the law’s the law and that rather than ignoring it it should be followed or changed. The situation in this case sounds pretty clear: state law prohibits it and that’s that. IIRC voting requirements and requirements for seeking office (except for a handful of specific issues) are left to the states.

Joshuapundit, “Genocide? What Genocide?”

Freedom Fighter considers the awful situation in Darfur and how little is actually being done about it. Whatever the label I think we can agree that the situation is horrific. It’s one of those situation in which I despair of anything actually being done before it’s far too late.

Right Wing Nut House, “The Art and Artifice of War Reporting”

Rick Moran considers disinformation both today and in the past using the situation that Britain faced early in World War II as a jumping off point. IMO the press’s current reporting is less due to malice than to limited budgets and sloth.

Gates of Vienna, “Human Rights Watch Says ‘Poor Saddam’”

Is there any way that trying Saddam wouldn’t be construed as “victor’s justice” by someone? It’s one of those situations in which I’m sad to say that everyone would probably have been better off if Saddam had been shot while trying to escape.

The Sundries Shack, “They May Not Mean to But They Are Killing Our Soldiers”

Jimmie Bise, too, is criticizing the media for publishing questionable facts from doubtful sources.

There’s no question in my mind which posts I’ll vote for. Which would get your vote?