Here’s an excellent example of saying a lot of things that aren’t new, but restating them in new and fresh ways. Wordsmith and satirist Mark Steyn has a trenchant and devastating column on Powell worship, media bias, media inability to see their bias, lack of diversity of thought among the left and newsrooms, their misappropriation of the term “liberal,” and the myth of small “independent” bookstores. None of them new themes, but well worth a reminder of, and supported by recent and ongoing examples.

So supporting “internationalism,” “multilateralism,” abortion and racial quotas means you’re “moderate” and “nonideological”? And anyone who feels differently is an extreme ideologue? Absolutely. The New York Times is rarely so explicit, at least in its “news” pages, but the aim of a large swathe of the left is not to win the debate but to get it cancelled before it starts. You can do that in any number of ways — busting up campus appearances by conservatives, “hate crimes” laws, Canada’s ghastly human-rights commissions, the more “enlightened” court judgments, the EU’s recent decision to criminalize “xenophobia,” or merely, as the Times does, by declaring your side of every issue to be the “moderate” and “nonideological” position.

As usual, the whole thing should be read.

I’ve often thought that Ned Flanders was one of the most interesting characters on the Simpsons. In a show that has set new standards for cynicism and satirical takes on contemporary society, while Ned is often poked fun at, he is also respected, in his own way, by the writers. He is someone who attempts, and generally succeeds, in living up to Christian ideals, and always comes across as a genuinely good and moral person. Most Christians on television are portrayed (usually by non-Christian television writers) as buttinskis and hypocrites, but Ned is both truly pious, and tolerant (often to a fault, and to his own detriment).

As Homer said in the episode in which he (temporarily) became Ned’s buddy, “If everyone in the world was like Ned Flanders, there’d be no need for Heaven–we’d already be there.”

So perhaps it’s not surprising that a number of Christians have adopted him as a role model, right down to the huge mustache.

John Weidner (and others) think that we should boycott Yahoo over their scummy deal with China to restrict access to some sites from over there.

Fine with me, but how do I do it? What is it that Yahoo provides, that I should quit using? I never even go to the site.

Antoine Clarke thinks that to compare Chris Patten to Marshal Petain is a disgraceful slur–on Petain.

I continue to be amazed at the consequences of Moore’s Law.

I went into Fry’s yesterday looking for a video card, and I saw on display a five-port auto-sensing switch for $29.95. Not just a dumb hub, but a dual-speed, full-duplex, non-bandwidth-sharing, packet-collision-avoiding switch.

But wait! There’s more. That was the regular price. That day, and that day only, it could actually be purchased for $19.95.

Still not a good enough deal?

What if I told you that packaged with it was a 10/100 auto-sensing PCI network interface card, all at the low, low price of $19.95?

I couldn’t resist, even though I already have a couple spare NICs. I figure you can never have enough NICs. I took it home, and plugged it into the ethernet outlet in the spare bedroom. It started to pass pings with merry abandon, and now I have another node on the network.

I fully expect, the next time I open a box of jumbo Cracker Jacks, to find a bubble-packed Cisco 2600 router…

With so many talented and insightful writers out there (most of whom I’d never even heard of less than a year ago, let alone read), it sometimes seems that there’s little new to say, or ability to say it better than others already have.

But I think that there’s value in saying things that aren’t new, and even in repeating things you’ve said before yourself, because apparently, the message continues to not get through in many cases, as evidenced by editiorial insanity continuing to spew from the WaPo and paper formerly known as the Paper of Record.

And if we continue to hammer on the same valid themes, as more people become aware of this medium, new readers will read them, or those who have read them before will view them in a new light, perhaps refracted through the prism of the latest atrocity in Israel, or some particularly egregious and appalling evidence that Islam (at least right now) is not the peaceful religion that many of its proponents claim.

For example, James Lileks says little new in today’s bleat on the latter subject, but (as is usually the case) he says it in a new and compelling way. If everyone read him, it would rightly be the last word on the subject, but there are many who remain still unaware of his writing–even his existence, so what he says will probably have to be said again (though through the magic of permanent hyperlinks, the next person who has to say it will have this gem to reference).

So, I’ll be less reticent in the future about repetition and recycling of old material, and less intimidated by the many greater talents here in the blogosphere, because I’ve come to think that it can still make a difference.

Just in case you thought the UN had any moral authority or credibility, check this out.

Daddy Warblogs (aka Steve Chapman, and no fan of the US war efforts in general) has a bracing little rant about the double standards at the UN vis a vis the Middle East (though of course that’s by no means the only venue in which such hypocrisy appears). And the Professor weighs in as well.

Definitely read Steve’s err…disquisition, but from Glenn:

I notice a certain selective indignation among the U.S. “peace” crowd, too. And if you point out that Arab nations, almost without exception, act horribly, you get the usual bogus accusations of racism in response.

The most disgusting thing about these leftist tactics is their “pot, kettle, black” quality. The real racism is not in pointing out deficiencies in the Arab nations, and expecting them to improve, but rather, in giving them a pass, and holding them to lower standards than the state (which really is a state, where people, even Arabs, you know, like vote and stuff, as opposed to all the other Arab thugocracies) of Israel.

Speaking of using unjustified teaching methods, Jacob Sullum takes on some more folks who do just that.

A study in the latest issue of the journal Health Education Research concludes that many schools use ?heavily marketed curricula that have not been evaluated, have been evaluated inadequately or have been shown to be ineffective in reducing substance abuse.? The lead researcher, Denise Hallfors of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, does not mince words in her evaluation of DARE. ?There?s no scientific rationale whatsoever for maintaining DARE in the schools,? she says.

Basically, every time the curriculum is shown to be ineffective, or even counterproductive, the DARE folks come out with a new one, claiming “This time for sure!”

Why do we continue to allow our children to be used as guinea pigs by well-meaning nincompoops?

Gee, I’m sure glad that, amidst hunting down the next folks with ambitions to do more unscheduled urban renewal, the FBI has the time and resources to go after those horrible brothels that have been blighting my life.