One of the great things about the blogosphere is the ability to connect with people in parts of the world where news is breaking. All of us now have access to the so-called ‘man on the street’ and it is great to get that perspective, which is often very different from what you see in the MSM.
We saw that firsthand last Sunday on Pundit Review Radio when we spoke live with Jerusalem-based video/photojournalist and blogger Dave Bender who operates Israel at Level Ground. Dave had some very compelling, thoughtful things to say about the situation in Israel, its impact on Lebanon and his family. You can listen to that interview by clicking here.
We plan on speaking with other bloggers in the Middle East in the coming weeks, and have sent out some feelers to Beirut-based blogs. More details as they solidify. This is the future of media.
Wall Street Journal
Page One
In the Midst of War, Bloggers Are Talking Across the Front Line; Online Conversations Go On Despite the Explosions
As missiles and hostile rhetoric fly back and forth between Lebanon and Israel, bloggers on both sides are talking to one another.
Lisa Goldman, a 39-year-old Canadian-born Israeli blogger in Tel Aviv, wrote in a recent post, “Will this turn out to be the first time that residents of ‘enemy’ countries engaged in an ongoing conversation while missiles were falling?”
Bloggers from Lebanon and Israel — some on the scene, others around the world — are providing live updates of their experiences, commenting on each other’s writing and sometimes linking to blogs across the border.
Unfortunately, subscription required to access the full story.
Congratulations to our two most frequent quests on Pundit Review Radio, Matt from Blackfive and Michael Yon who were featured yesterday’s Wall Street Journal!
Matthew Burden, an Army veteran, started his blog, “Blackfive,” in December 2003 after he learned that an Army buddy, Maj. Mathew Schram, had been killed in an ambush near the Iraq-Syria border. Mr. Burden, 39, felt his friend received short shrift in media coverage and decided to blog about military stories he felt weren’t getting the attention they deserved.
“Does Abu Ghraib need to be told 40 times above the fold in the New York Times when half your readers couldn’t name the guy who won the Medal of Honor?” Mr. Burden says.
Michael Yon, a 42-year-old Army Special Forces veteran, is perhaps the most attention-grabbing blogger, with appearances on MSNBC and CNN. In December 2004, he embedded himself with troops in Iraq and posted dispatches online for the next several months.
Most of Mr. Yon’s writings related heroic acts by American troops and Iraqis. Mr. Yon also praises some media coverage of Iraq. But in an interview, he says many reporters “haven’t stayed long enough to see what’s going on. Most of the reporting is not deep enough.” According to Mr. Yon, Iraqis are determined to fight insurgents and embrace a new government, a storyline he says he doesn’t see in mainstream news coverage.
To read the full story, click here.
To listen to Blackfive and Michael Yon on Pundit Review Radio, click here.
Washington Post
Liberals and Israel
By Howard Kurtz
Usually, bloggers get hammered for what they say. These days, liberal bloggers are being denounced for what they aren’t saying.
As I’ve noted before, most of the lefty blogs are avoiding the Middle East war. Some of those puzzled by the relative silence have suggested that these bloggers don’t want to wade into this particular crossfire. Some of the bloggers have noted that they have no particular expertise on the subject.
Now the debate has taken a new turn, with the accusation that the liberals are really just hiding their anti-Israel views. I have no idea whether this is true or not–the bloggers are not exactly reticent on other subjects–and there are some liberal commentators who have certainly not shied away from criticizing Israel.
Still, conservatives are ramping up the argument that there’s a game of camouflage going on, and the back-and-forth is revealing.
Jeff Jarvis of Buzz Machine has some related thoughts in his post Fearing for Israel
To listen to Jeff Jarvis on Pundit Review Radio, click here.
A commenter on our blog suggests that there are “political” solutions to “military problems.” Essentially, he suggests that Israel should just sit down and reason with those Hezbollah chaps and all will be well in the Middle East.
We don’t “negotiate” with terrorists. Been there and done that with Carter and Clinton and it got us nowhere. We should not expect our friend and ally Israel to negotiate with them either.
Don Feder puts it best:
For these ravenous wolves, concessions, negotiations and ceasefires are the scent of blood. An outstretched hand is always answered with a kick in the teeth. Prior to the Second World War, Winston Churchill warned of the Germans, “The Hun is either at your feet or at your throat” — meaning you will subdue him or he will subdue you. That goes double for the Sons of Allah.” KILL ‘EM ALL. LET ALLAH SORT ‘EM OUT.
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
07-24-06
The currrent crisis in the Middle East is not “political.” Terror organizations and
terror states (Iran and Syria come to mind) have declared War on Israel (and are intentionally targeting the civilian Israeli population unlike the Israelis who continue to try to minimize civilian casualties while targeting military terror strongholds and installations in defense of their nation (Although this is a somewhat difficult endeavor given the propensity for Hezbollah to imbed themselves among heavily
concentrated civilian populations). You don’t “negotiate” with terror organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah and countries such as Iran and Syria who have publicly stated that their goal is to eviscerate Israel from the face of the earth.
People who advocate the same discredited and failed “solutions” to how to respond to terrorist acts of war. Negotiating and appeasing terrorist organizations has back fired every time b/c terrorists perceive conciliation and appeasement as a sign of weakness and they prey on any hint of reticence. The Jihadist throat cutter that thinks that he is going to “heaven” with his “72 Virgins” after he straps a bomb to himself and blows up a pizza parlor full of innocent Jewish teenagers only comprehends brute force and that’s what our military is going to give the throat cutters and what the IDF is going to give Iran sponsored Hezbollah and any other terror organization that seeks its annihilation.
Again, more “negotiating” and “diplomacy” as John suggests the US and Israel engage in does not work. Been there done that. Feder puts it best:
“Ronald Reagan forced Sharon to let Arafat go and pull back. The U.S. sent in a peacekeeping force of Marines. The Sons of Allah thanked us by murdering 241 of them, in the 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut. (Hezbollah claimed responsibility, a fact little noted by the media today.)
“The Sons of Allah took the American withdrawal from Lebanon as a sign of our impotence. Along with Clinton’s pull-out from Somalia and Gomer Pyle’s non-response to the 444-day Tehran hostage crisis, this set the stage for 9/11.”
Will those mostly on the ideological left seeking “political” solutions in response to blatant acts of terror and war ever learn that the only viable “solution,” when dealing with crazed Islamo Facists who seek your total destruction, is to put as many of them as possible in body bags as quickly as possible before they kill you, your entire family, and fellow countrymen?
Michelle Malkin makes a compelling case for the appointment of John Bolton to U.N. Ambassador in this entertaining and informative video
Thanks Michelle!
Great article in today’s Wall St. Journal by Ron Haskins of Brooking’s (not a conservative think tank by the way).
The failure of many liberal ideas, initiatives, and programs has been well documented. ( public schools, “wind-fall” profit taxes, nationalized healthcare, “living wage”, Social Security, etc…)
We can now officially add their staunch opposition to welfare reform in the 90s to the list. Clinton did begrudgingly sign teh GOP sponsored legislation in 1996 in a last ditch effort to get re-elected after two prior vetos, but liberal Dems where almost unanimously opposed to Welfare Reform.
Here is a sample of what the alarmists were saying back then:
The left, led by senior Democrats in Congress, the editorial pages of many of the nation’s leading newspapers, the Catholic bishops, child advocates in Washington and the professoriate, had assaulted the bill in terms that are rare, even by today’s coarse standards. Democrats speaking on the floor of the House labeled the bill “harsh,” “cruel” and “mean-spirited.” They claimed that it “attacked,” “punished” and “lashed out at” children. Columnist Bob Herbert said the bill conducted a “jihad” against the poor, made “war on kids” and “deliberately inflict[ed] harm” on children and the poor. Sen. Frank Lautenberg said poor children would be reduced to “begging for money, begging for food, and . . . engaging in prostitution.”
Many Democrats and pundits shouted that the bill would throw a million children into poverty. Marion Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund said that no one who believed in the Judeo-Christian tradition could support the bill. Even God, it seemed, opposed the evil Republican bill.
Were they correct in their apocolytic predictions?
Uh, that would be “no.”
In the decade that has passed since the 1996 reforms, the welfare rolls have plummeted by nearly 60%, the first sustained decline since the program was enacted in 1935. Equally important, the employment of single mothers heading families reached the highest level ever. As a group, mothers heading families with incomes of less than about $21,000 per year increased their earnings every year between 1994 and 2000 while simultaneously receiving less money from welfare payments. In inflation-adjusted dollars, they were about 25% better off in 2000 than in 1994, despite the fall in their welfare income.
Over the same period, the child-poverty level enjoyed its most sustained decline since the early 1970s; and both black-child poverty and poverty among female-headed families reached their lowest level ever. Even after four years of increases following the recession of 2001, the child poverty level is still 20% lower than it was before the decline began. Similarly, measures of consumption and hunger show that the material conditions of low-income, female-headed families have improved. Although welfare reform was not without problems, none of the disasters predicted by the left materialized. Indeed, national surveys show that almost every measure of child well-being — except obesity — has improved since the mid-1990s.
Liberals like Kerry and Kennedy who fought welfare reform tooth and nail not only owe an aplogy to Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jim Talent- the primary architects of the 1996 Welare Reform Legislation- but more importantly they owe an apology to the very poor constitituencies they claim to represent who have benefited most from the very legeslation they so fervently opposed.
…the liberal blog that closely follows Massachusetts politics, they just hit some nice big round numbers.