Ever hear the old joke about

the guy who gets beaten up by a mugger. A social worker asks him "What did you do to that poor man to make him beat you so badly?"

Some similar psychology must be at work in the UK regarding their insane gun/self-defense laws. Check out this op/ed in the Telegraph (via Samizdata):

In recent years governments have even felt it necessary to prevent the public from defending themselves with imitation weapons. In 1994 an English home-owner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the home-owner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate.

The logic seems to be that if you manage to best the intruder, then you have used too much force. Is there some socialist values system at work where all gain is ill-gotten and therefore burglary is merely an alternative wealth redistribution system?

I believe it was Mark Steyn who wondered how long it would be before British homeowners started burying burglars in the backyard instead of calling the police. Seriously, the government is just begging for vigilantism. We had an analogous situation here in Missouri several years ago about which a book was written:

Ken Rex McElroy terrorized the residents of several counties in northwestern Missouri for a score of years. He raped young girls and brutalized them after they went to live with him or even married him; he shot at least two men; he stole cattle and hogs, and burned down the houses of some who interfered with his criminal activities. Thanks to the expert efforts of his lawyer and the pro-defendant bias of state laws, he served no more than a few days in jail, the author shows. In 1981, sentenced for the shooting of a popular grocer and free on bail, he was killed by the men of Skidmore, the center of his felonies; they closed ranks against all attempts to identify those who had pulled the triggers. Written by a first-time author, this is an engrossing, credible examination of the way vigilante action can take over when the law appears to be powerless.

Ya think?

James Lileks on Christmas in the Public Sphere

How can you not love Lileks with lines like this:

If I were a dyslexic atheist I’d say I don’t have a god in this fight.

and:

What amuses me, if that’s the term, is the way retailers and large media have shied away from saying “Merry Christmas” because it might offend the prissy little busybodies who spend their life like a dental filling in a tinfoil blizzard.

Two Kinds of Commie Wanna-bee's

I've always been a bit perplexed by people who live in the free world yet fancy themselves Communists of Marxists or whatnot, especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall. What do these commie wanna-bee's think those throngs of people were running from? Shouldn't it be obvious to all by now that there are no happy endings in communist countries? How may mass graves does an ideology have to fill up before we can rule it defunct? So anyway...

I had a revelation about free world communists while reading Mona Charen's Useful Idiots. It's packed with tales of appalling behavior by politicians, academics and journalists for whom the title is a perfect fit. But what really jumped out at me was a story about Armond Hammer. I'm retelling this from memory, so I don't recall all the specifics. Essentially, Hammer is traveling around the young Soviet Union in the 20's with some party big shot. The two are supposed to catch a train, but the train is late. When the train finally arrives, the big shot asks who is in charge. The big shot promptly has the unlucky engineer and his assistant shot. Supposedly, the pair do not have to wait for a train again.

No surprise there. Typical communism in action. What made the lightbulb go off was Hammer's reaction to the incident. Now Hammer is a big time industrialist. He's just the sort of person communists are always going on about. Yet, he's not appalled by two people being murdered because they had inconvenienced him (as I'd like to think most people would be). No, he was excited. Just think of all he could accomplish if he could just have the head of the labor union shot!

Revelation! Most of the commie wanna-bee's I have know are the college kids and aging hippies who want to make the world safe for fuzzy kitties and rainbows. You know, the ones Lenin characterized as "useful idiots." In my naivete, I never guessed at the existence of the other type. The ones, like Hammer, who see themselves holding the rifles. They plan on designating who will fill those mass graves, not on being grave fodder themselves. They're fully aware that communism is a murderous ideology. That fact doesn't frighten or disgust them. It excites them. They can't wait to put their "obstacles" up against the wall.

About those Swift Boat Vets

So, I'm paging through Time magazine and I see this regarding the Swift Boat Vets: "...even though their attacks on John Kerry's war record were widely debunked." I've see similar sentences in a dozens of different publications, yet I've never seen an article doing any actual debunking. The closest I've seen is that all the official documentation backs Kerry's story. But since Kerry wrote most of the official documentation, I think its a stretch to call that debunking.

2slick notes that the only reason the the SBVs claims are "unsubstantiated" (another popular word the MSM uses regarding the Swifties) is that a certain unsuccessful presidential candidate would not release his military records.

Santa: Democrat or Republican?

The debate rages on:

KERN: Shall we begin our colloquy with a simple Karl-Rovian analysis? Santa Claus is a self-employed Caucasian male who's been married to the same woman for several centuries. It appears likely that he is a churchgoer, insofar as he is a Catholic saint and a former bishop. Is not Santa's political affiliation perfectly obvious from his demographic profile alone?

NOT BROTHER-IN-LAW: I will rebut your assessment with Steve-Sailer counter-analysis: Santa Claus has no children. High-achieving professionals without children trend Democratic.

More on Holland's "Immigration" troubles

Christopher Caldwell explains why Holland's Muslim population remains so unassimilated and what the Dutch are doing (and not doing) about it.

The ACLU Homeland Holiday Advisory System

Tee-hee. (via Right Wing News)

Republican shopping spree?

Says Jim Geraghty:

Hugh Hewitt is right. If Congress can afford to spend $1 million on the Norwegian American Foundation's celebration of Norway's 100th anniversary of independence, then taxes are too darn high.

So true. I like my Republicans stingy. The Norwegians can do what everyone else does: get Coke or Nike to sponser their fete.

UN has lost sight of mission

The original U.N. mission, to protect the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, has been hijacked and corrupted by nations that neither share the universal values of the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights nor have democratic intentions.

Who's hijacked the UN? As if you didn't know. And if you don't know, you should check out the article. It touches on a number of reasons why conservatives shake their heads and laugh when John Kerry uses the words "UN" and "legitimacy" in the same sentence. For example:

Reform of the human-rights commission, according to the secretary general's experts, requires not limiting the commission to states committed to democracy and human-rights protection, but expanding the membership from the current 53 to all 191 U.N. member states. Current members and human-rights enthusiasts like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan will no doubt be delighted to be joined by friends in Iran and Burma.

Why would we think, even for an instant, that the UN would back the US in its desire to spread democracy when the majority of its member states are not democracies themselves?

I used to think the UN was a righteous organazation, protecting the innocent and bringing peace to the world. But I must admit that was back when I didn't know ONE SINGLE THING about it. I hope their PR guys get paid a lot. They've obviously earned it.

Update: More good press for the UN. Upon hearing the latest allegations of "rape, prostitution and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers from Pakistan, Uruguay, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Nepal, Jim Geraghty wonders "how anybody can look the U.N. and not see a moral cesspool".

Why We'll Win

From Protest Warriors - Netherlands Branch. (Via Davids Medienkritik)
If you doubt the accuracy of the poster, you haven't been reading your Little Green Footballs.

The next wave of immigration?

From the Telegraph:

Europe's leader for much of the last century in social experiments, Holland may now be pointing to the next cultural revolution: bourgeois exodus.

More people left the Netherlands than entered it for the first time in 50 years. Seems they can't take the crowded conditions, the traffic conjestion and, oh yeah, islamic fanatics murdering people in the streets. Via SISU who has more commentary on the subject.

Shawnee, KS = White Trash Mecca

Hmmm. Apparently, Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter With Kansas?, is trying to paint Shawnee as a depressed area filled with "heaps of rusting junk and snarling rottweilers". Okay Kansas Citians, as soon as you've stopped laughing hysterically you can check out the article debunking that claim:

The objects of Mr. Frank's particular concern, his hometown of Shawnee and the rest of Johnson County, have done especially well. For three years in the 1990s, the Shawnee area's unemployment rate actually dipped below 3%, making it one of the tightest labor markets anywhere.

When the recession hit, Shawnee's unemployment rate did rise, but it still stayed below the nation's. And though Mr. Frank describes the place as practically desolate, Shawnee's population grew by a robust 27% during the 1990s. Even more astonishing, today, only 3.3% of its citizens live below the poverty level, compared with about 12.5% nationally. "It's possible his view of us is outdated," says Jim Martin, executive director of the Shawnee Economic Development Council, in classic Midwestern understatement.

Not to question Mr. Frank's account but, as a sometime house-hunter in KC, let me add that we could trade in our 3 bedroom ranch in South KC on the exact same thing in Shawnee for an additional $40k. We do have a few heaps of rusting junk in the neighborhood, but no rottweilers. Maybe we should get some. I had no idea snarling rottweilers could drive up the property values so.

Kofi Must Go

Canada's National Post calls for Kofi Annan's resignation:

Even putting Iraq and the oil-for-food scandal aside, the case against Mr. Annan is damning... Two weeks ago, UN workers in New York City voted that they had lost faith in the Secretary-General's ability and that of his senior administrators.
Mr. Annan has also watched as the UN Human Rights Commission has degenerated into a laughingstock run by some of the worst human-rights abusers in the world. He has refused to stop the UN agency responsible for delivering humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees from assisting terrorists. And from Rwanda to Srebrenica, East Timor to Sudan, he has time and again permitted himself to be conned by tyrants and butchers while they have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Given all this, it is amazing to think that Mr. Annan was once thought to be a man who could help reform the United Nations.

It is possible that it's not Kofi's fault. Perhaps this "stunningly disfuncional" organization is so corrupt that no one could reform it.

(via Instapundit)

Dennis Ross on Public Radio

Wow. I'm listening to an amazing radio interview on Up to Date with ambassador Dennis Ross, the chief Middle East peace negotiator for George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He's also got a new book out: The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace.

This has got to be the most straight forward program on the Palestinian issue that I have ever heard from the MSM. Ross said (I paraphrase from memory) that the peace process would have succeeded if it hadn't have been for Arafat and it has a good chance now that he's gone (if we can get some cooperation from Egypt and the Saudis). Also, Hamas runs all those social welfare programs that make them so popular because Arafat wasn't interested boring stuff like actually running his "country". Condi is a good choice for Sec State because she has the full confidence of the president. Finally, he said the Israelis had no choice but to build the wall, what with Arafat not lifting a finger to stop suicide bombers from blowing themselves up on Israeli busses. (All sarcasm is mine, ambassador Ross was very professional.)

Somewhere in Kansas City, a CAIR member is writing a hostile letter to KCUR. (I just shot off my appreciative e-mail)

Transcript should be here by tomorrow.

What's wrong with Liberalism and what to do about it

Interesting article in the New Republic on how Democrats went from the "bear any burden" JFK to the "let's have a summit" JFK:

By 1949, three years after Winston Churchill warned that an "iron curtain" had descended across Europe, Schlesinger could write in The Vital Center: "Mid-twentieth century liberalism, I believe, has thus been fundamentally reshaped ... by the exposure of the Soviet Union, and by the deepening of our knowledge of man. The consequence of this historical re-education has been an unconditional rejection of totalitarianism."

However, three years after a new totalitarian threat was brought home to us on 9-11:

...Liberalism has still not "been fundamentally reshaped" by the experience. On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s--a collection of domestic interests and concerns. ...There is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

I'm always interested in articles that can help me explain why I switched so quickly and so thoroughly from the Dems to the Reps. Obviously, it was something to do with 9-11, but it's nice to have the deep thinkers lay it all out. The right is trying to deal with the new situation, while too many on the left refuses to recognize that there is a new situation. It must be so frustrating to be Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman.

I am often left puzzling over how Liberals can side with the most illiberal force since... I was going to say Nazism, but while there are quite a few similarities, the Nazis at least had their own twisted version of fun. Polka bands and Wagner and naked women on horse back. The Taliban was the death of fun. The Nazis had their own twisted version of science. Sure, they measured people's heads to determine if they were Jewish, but they also went from prop planes to jet planes over the course of the war. The Taliban was the death of science.

I hope it's obvious that I'm not defending Nazis. I'm just pointing out that Liberals have always taken a hard-line against fascism and before Vietnam, they took a hard-line against communism. Why on earth will they not take a hard-line against an equally odious ideology?

The Republicans are vulnerable to attack by a cold war type of liberalism.

Bush has not increased the size of the U.S. military since September 11--despite repeated calls from hawks in his own party--in part because, given his massive tax cuts, he simply cannot afford to. An anti-totalitarian liberalism would attack those tax cuts not merely as unfair and fiscally reckless, but, above all, as long-term threats to America's ability to wage war against fanatical Islam. Today, however, there is no liberal constituency for such an argument in a Democratic Party in which only 2 percent of delegates called "terrorism" their paramount issue and another 1 percent mentioned "defense."

Count me among that 3%. I think Lieberman had a good shot at Bush. But he had no shot at the Democratic noomination. Guess that's why I had to vote Bush.

Update: Andrew Sullivan publishes a letter from a Dem:

"Only one problem with Beinart's thesis. People like me will not vote for the kind of Democrat he pines for. And people like me are the base of the Democratic party. I would not vote for Joe Lieberman or any Iraq-war supporting Democrat (that includes Hillary, by the way). People like me are the mirror images of the Republican right. We would rather lose than sacrifice our principles."

Then lose you will. That's what Beinart is saying.

Update: Okay, one snarky comment about the article. The author goes on about how Kerry had positioned himself as a liberal war hawk (mainly through his choice of advisors), but because the Iraq War was unpopular, hawkishness became unpopular with the Democratic base. So Kerry voted against the $87 billion to lure the lefties back from Dean. According to the author, one of the main problems with this action was that "...it helped the Bush campaign paint him as unprincipled".

Yes, that's right. Trying to win a primary by voting to deny the military the money it needs to successfully prosecute a war you were in favor of until it became politically unpopular isn't an unprincipled action. Voters only considered it sleazy because Karl Rove painted that highly moral action as unprincipled. Bad Karl.

How's Multiculturalism Doing in Europe?

Bill Dawson, an ex-pat American blogging from Vienna, notes that its worthwhile to keep up with events in the Netherlands, as that country attempts to deal with its Islamist problem following Van Gogh's murder. As one of the most liberal/tolerant countries in Europe it encapsulates the paradox of tolerance: At some point, a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance if it wants to stay tolerant. Hmmm.

Some Dutch blogs that are following the story:
Peaktalk
Zacht Ei

Events in the Netherlands have stirred things up in Germany:

While Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has stepped-up a campaign calling on the country's big Muslim community to fit with the country's laws and its democratic principles, leading political figures in the nation have claimed that multiculturalism has failed in Germany...

[German Interior Minister Otto] Schily drew headlines earlier this year with a harsh warning to Islamic fundamentalists: "If you love death so much, then it can be yours."

Almost Rumsfeldesque. However, Germany is taking steps to better integrate its mainly Turkish Muslim immigrants:

Under this legislation all new immigrants will have to take 600 hours German language instruction plus a 30 hour course on German society. In addition, 50,000 immigrants already here will be eligible to take the courses each year.

The War on What?

From an interesting new blog by a Foreign Service Officer:

OK, I’ve said this before and I am going to say it again. There is no war against terrorism. We are not hunting down the FARC or ETA or Shining Path. We are not chasing the vestiges of the IRA. We are fighting Islamic extremism. I know this is not a ground shaking original thought, but it needs to be repeated. Islamic jihadists are the enemy, and terrorism is simply their weapon of choice.

(Via The Diplomad)

If you can read this...

Seen on a bumper sticker:

If you can read this
Thank a teacher.
If you're reading it in English
Thank a soldier.

Fallujah: proving there are worse things than war

Namely, living joyless lives of subjugation and fear:

"It was horrible," he told an AFP reporter."We suffered from the bombings. Innocent people died or were wounded by the bombings.

"But we were happy you did what you did because Fallujah had been suffocated by the Mujahidin. Anyone considered suspicious would be slaughtered. We would see unknown corpses around the city all the time." ...

"I would hear stories, about how they executed five men one day and seven another for collaborating with the Americans. They made checkpoints on the roads. They put announcements on walls banning music and telling women to wear the veil from head to toe."

It was not just pedlars of alcohol or Western videos and women deemed improperly dressed who faced the militants' wrath. Even residents who regard themselves as observant Muslims lived in fear because they did not share the puritan brand of Sunni Islam that the insurgents enforced.

Isn't it ironic that the Iraqis have far more religious freedom under the cruel American occupation than they have ever had before or will have again if we leave before they have a functioning democracy?

Blackfive's got your exit strategy right here.

Upon discovering that Iranian agents have offered a $500 bounty for each American Soldier or Marine killed, Blackfive offers his own exit strategy from Iraq and Afganistan.

Condi for Secretary of State

Alright! Racist, fascist Bush replaces first black Sec. of State with second black Sec. of State. Instapundit readers wonder whether the lack of play in the press indicates that A) we have come so far as a society that two black Secretaries of State is no big deal or B) MSM can't figure out how to fit it into their Republican=Racism superstory.

Lileks sums it up:

Yay Condi Rice. I want her to go to Saudi Arabia, and I want her first words upon getting off the plane to be “I’ll drive.”

(via Vodkapundit)

It's True! Rove Stole the Election.

Frank J. uncovers the shocking truth:

Hacker2: It was funny to see the Democrats try and cheat the old-fashioned way. They can bring in all the dead people they want to vote, but we'll just change their votes to Republican in the end.

(via Instapundit)

Well, not everyone is sorry

In response to Sorry Everybody, we now have We're Not Sorry, with picture of people who are happy that Bush will be "cutting taxes and killing terrorists" for another four years. Also this heartbreaker:



Now that's something worth being sorry about

Update: why shouldn't the Germans get in on the act.

Everybody's Sorry

Perhaps you've seen the pathetic bunch of whiners congregating at Sorry Everybody, where they have posted picture apoligizing to the world for Bush's reelection. It's a pretty sad display, although I don't think everyone is onboard with the spirit of the project:



(via LGF)

Quagmire, anyone?

Ivory Coast, the world's top cocoa producer and West Africa's economic powerhouse, erupted in turmoil on Saturday after Ivory Coast warplanes killed nine French peacekeepers and an American aid worker in an airstrike on the rebel-held north.

France wiped out the nation's newly built-up airforce on the tarmac in retaliation, sparking a violent anti-French uprising of looting, burning and attacks by loyalist youths. The turmoil has claimed at least 27 lives and wounded more than 900, with no deaths reported among expatriates.

Hmmm. France retaliates? Why not search for the root causes of the violence. Obviously the local population is just trying to throw of the yoke of foreign oppression. I wonder when we'll see the demonstrations in Paris against this imperial aggression. "No Blood for Cocoa!"

Belgian Political Party Declared illegal

According to the BBC:

Belgian's highest court has ruled that the Flemish far-right Vlaams Blok party is racist. The ruling means the Blok will lose access to state funding and access to television which will, in effect, shut down the party... Recent opinion polls suggest the Vlaams Blok is the most popular party in the Dutch-speaking region of Flanders. It garnered almost a quarter of votes in regional and European elections in June.

So what's scarier: that a far-right party is garnering 25% of the vote or that a party that garners 25% of the vote can be outlawed in a supposedly free society? Hmmm. I thought it was America's democracy that was teetering on the edge.

Of course, it's hard to tell how far-right this party really is. After all, one gets the feeling that the folks at the BBC think the Republican party is far-right.

The New World Order according to Der Spiegel

Wow. I don't even go to church, but I'm stunned by the condescension of the European media. Now, tell me again why we should bend over backwards to get our actions pre-approved by Berlin? (via LGF)

Update

A commenter at LGF posts a corrected version of Der Spiegel's map.

Another conspiracy theory bites the dust

That mysterious bulge on President Bush’s back during the first presidential debate was not an electronic device feeding him answers, but a strap holding his bulletproof vest in place...

But sources in the Secret Service told The Hill that Bush was wearing a bulletproof vest, as he does most of the time when appearing in public. The president’s handlers did not want to admit as much during the campaign, for fear of disclosing information related to his personal security while he was on the campaign trail.

Well, duh. 30 seconds of thought should have told you that. But no. Must be another Rovian conspiracy. A campaigning president mixing with large crowds everyday has got to be a major headache for the Secret Service. I'm sure they really want someone from the administration saying "Yes, the President always wears a bulletproof vest" (so be sure to aim for the head). That whole ridiculous dust-up reminds me of reporters who ask "When exactly are you going to invade Fallujah? And with which units? And will you be coming from the north or the west?"

(via Tim Blair)

Who ya callin' stoopid, stoopid?

The Batman Effect

From Truth Laid Bear:

Batman is constantly trying to put the Joker out of business for good. But if you haven't noticed, he generally never quite manages. The Joker is never, ever truly vanquished; he'll always be back for more.

But when the Joker's on the loose again, you don't stop to think "Damn, Batman still hasn't managed to get rid of this guy, we better find somebody else." You don't say "get me Aquaman on the phone." You think about the only guy who actually does something about the Joker, even if it hasn't been a permanent solution: the only guy who's been able to do the clown some damage and set back his schemes a ways. You put up the damned Bat Signal and hope that Batman answers the call.

Bush is Batman to Bin Laden's Joker. And the American public isn't going to dump Batman just because he hasn't won the final battle with the Joker yet.

That's what I thought every time I heard Kerry chastising Bush for not catching Osama. At least Bush took the fight to Osama the best way he knew how. Maybe Kerry stands up to the bad guys, maybe he invites them to a summit. Who could tell?

Married People for Bush

Apparently, more married people than single people voted for Bush. Barbara Ehrenreich just said on the News Hour that this is because women have less influence in a marriage and are so beaten down that they take on the views of their evil fascists husbands (or words to that effect). Tee hee. Apparently she's never met me or my sister-in-law. I was strongly pro-Bush and she was strongly pro-Kerry. Our poor husbands just kept their heads down and tried to stay out of the way.

Just got back from the polls

I made Brian go with me, so I would have some company in line. When we got there, I skated right through because I fell in with that notorious group of slackers: people with surnames beginning J-Z. Poor Brian belongs to the more civic-minded A-I's. He had to wait at least another half-an-hour. Now we just wait to hear the results.

I Love the Kerry Healthcare Plan

I love it, love it, love it. I want everyone to have affordable/free health insurance so bad I can taste it. But as I read more on the topic and observe nations like Canada and the UK who are trying to provide it, I have to admit to myself that it's just not possible. It just goes against human nature.

Note this post by Sydney Smith comparing Kerry's plan to a similar plan that Tennessee already runs:

The program's generosity, however, did not include doctors and hospitals, whose reimbursement rates are so low that seeing Tenncare patients is a losing proposition. As a result, access to care is a very real problem for Tenncare patients, some of whom have to drive 40 miles just to see a doctor. (And keep in mind, those are mountain miles.) And what about the children? Only 19% of pediatricians in Tennessee accept Tenncare, the lowest participation rate of any state in the union. As a result, over one-third of children enrolled in Tenncare have trouble finding a doctor. That's a very real problem. And one that's much more serious and damaging to a child's health than lack of insurance.

Under Kerry's plan, fully half of American families would have their children covered. The only way to pay for this is to demand that prices be kept low. Why do we still think that we can dictate prices and not suffer the consequences? We might not notice for a few years, until the supply of medical students dries up when kids figure out that doctors can't make enough money to compensate for the long years of study and the high student loan payments. Or when doctors start to retire early or even change fields because they can't pay their medical malpractice insurance and still put food on the table.

As a former supporter of single-payer health insurance plans, it pains me to admit that I was wrong. Not so much wrong, as ignorant of the ways of the world and guilty of wishfull thinking.

Update:

"This is just the typical garbage and propaganda from the drug manufacturers," says Carlton Carl, spokesman for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. "There's absolutely no disincentive for making vaccines. American companies don't do it for the same reason they're sending jobs overseas--because it increases their profits."

Maybe someone could explain to Mr. Carl that not making a profit is a disincentive.

Multilateralism in Action

'If this isn't genocide, then what on earth is?' says Lord Alton in his report on the situation in Darfur. And while we patiently pursue resolution after resolution at the UN:

We joined a group of 17 women sitting in the shade of a tree, drinking coffee. Most were widows, and most had also lost fathers, brothers and sons. They need firewood for cooking and grass for their animals, and are thus forced to go beyond the camp. They had all, without exception, been the victims of attack and rape by the Janjaweed. Although they are clearly traumatised by the daily risks they run, they speak philosophically about it: "If our men go out, they die. If we go, we are raped. That's the choice."

70,000 are already dead with a million more herded into camps that are patrolled by the very Janjaweed militiamen that want to kill them. Isn't this a great opportunity for the EU to step in and, while the US is occupied with Iraq and presidential elections, prove that multilateralism means something more that moral indifference? Come on Europe! show us how you don't need that overbearing American leadership to be a force for good in the world. You know, like you did in Bosnia and Rawanda. Oh wait... well, third time's a charm right?

If you liked Kerry's comment about Mary Cheney,

then you'll love the response Frank J suggests for Bush:

"There are a lot of problems in America that need to be dealt with," Bush said, "Such as obesity, as seen with John Edwards’s fat cow wife. And there is the problem of mental illness, such as with Kerry's own wacked-out crazy wife. And we must stop those who may take advantage of the insane by marrying them for their billions."

"Finally, there is the problem of promiscuity," Bush continued, "as displayed by Kerry's own slut daughter - you know, the one you saw wearing that see-through dress to a film festival.

Just, you know, personalizing the issues by pointing out something everyone already knows anyway so what's the big deal.

Update from Jonah:

But what if George W. Bush had said "divorce is a difficult issue. On one hand we all think society is healthier when marriages are healthier. On the other hand, we understand that good and decent people sometimes have irreconcilable differences. I'm sure if you asked John Kerry's first wife, she would tell you that there are no easy answers..." Or if he had said, "I'm sure if you asked John Kerry's lovely daughters whether it was easy for them to cope with their parents' divorce..." Or what if Bush had said, "America is a land of great opportunity for immigrants. I'm sure John Kerry's second wife Teresa, who was born in Africa, would agree..."

Update from Verifrank:

Oh! One other thing - Mary Cheney is a Lesbian. I know cause Barney Frank and Jim McGreevy told me so. It's not that we didnt know, or that she didnt know, but we just thought you'd like to know, but only if it changes how you think of the Cheney family, if it changes how you feel about John Kerry, then you are clearly a bigot.

Bush is the idealist and Kerry the conservative

Must read in the London Times by another Democrat for Bush. I'm not quite as liberal as this woman, but she sums up my feelings on this election nearly perfectly:

I have registered as a Democrat because I want to put the party on notice. Should it lose the election, an open question at present, I want it to look at the numbers of Bush-supporting Democrats and draw the appropriate lesson about its unconvincing foreign policy. Perhaps then I will be able to support the party in 2008...

On foreign policy, Bush is the idealist and Kerry the conservative, afraid to disturb the status quo. I've never abandoned my belief in human rights and democracy.

Yes, exactly. And it just happens to be Bush who is championing those beliefs this time around. To see the Democrats abandon those beliefs in hopes of hurting Bush is just appalling. To underline the hypocrisy of Kerry's on again off again Iraq policy:

Kerry voted against the 1991 Gulf war, despite his present blather about the United Nations, global tests and international alliances. There could not have been a broader coalition then. Had Kerry been president, Saddam would not only be in power today; he would be richer, more powerful and running Kuwait.

Update: Times stories don't stick around for foreigners, so I'm linking to QandO's lengthy excerpt and commentary for future reference.

NY State Lawmakers for Election Fraud

Via Jim Geraghty:

New York's Republican governor blames Democratic lawmakers for stalling reforms that could have stopped a reported 46,000 voters from being registered at the same time in New York City and Florida.

Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 to give states federal funding for election commissions, registration systems and vote- count regulation. Each state must adopt a version of the act with specific processes in order to receive the federal aid.
New York's Republican- controlled Senate and Democrat-controlled Assembly passed different versions of the act in February. A bipartisan committee was convened to write a final version of the act, but the committee has been unable to reach a consensus.

The state comptroller's office has $68 million waiting to be used for a centralized list that would identify voters registered in multiple states and counties. That money cannot be used until New York passes the reforms.

Geraghty comments: "Keep at it, small-minded politicians seeking to maximize voter fraud and double voting. Go ahead. See how much power any official has when nobody believes the results on Election Day."

Which reminds me that I never linked to this great Vodkapundit screed:

If Drudge has it right, then the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic... Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

Guardian gets feedback

The Guardian has posted some responses from Americans regarding it's attempt to influence the presidential elections. As expected, the more maniacal the raving, the more likely to be published (unless it was supportive of the initiative). Here's my favorite:

My dear, beloved Brits, I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!

Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don't use big, fancy words.

Set me straight, folks!

Do you think the Guardianistas get the joke? Maybe they think they've finally found a reasonable and introspective American.

Kerry Thinks We're All Idiots,

the only question now: Is he right? Kerry himself is claiming Bush will bring back the draft if reelected. Isn't he supposed to leave that sort of sleazy fear-mongering to his underlings? It's especially lame considering there is only one candidate for president who has suggested mandatory national service. (Hint: It's not Bush)

The allegedly non-partisan Rock the Vote is sensationalizing the issue, but they do link to Alliance for Security, a site with a pretty good explanation of the issue. Unfortunately, the rest AFS is full a hysterical draft-baiting.

Update: Seems Kerry's campaign also thinks he should avoid the sleaze. They're backing off a bit:

Kerry's reference to the draft was a "gaffe" only insofar as the candidate himself wasn't supposed to mention it. The Democrats, playing as always on the fears of the ignorant, are promoting the draft hoax for all they are worth among unsophisticated voters. But because the idea is so ludicrous, they didn't intend for Kerry to make the claim himself, on the record. However, as so often happens with Kerry, the draft line just slipped out.

Novelists for Election Fraud

I originally went to this Slate article to read Roger L. Simon's entry, but also found this little tidbit from author Nicole Krauss (3rd entry from the bottom:

I'm voting for Kerry. I've just discovered that, through some unsurprising accident of the Board of Elections, I'm actually registered to vote in two different counties. So I'm considering voting for him twice. I really think it's not alarmist to say that if Bush is reelected to another four years, it may be the end of life as we know it.

Lots of other fun quotes over there too. In the very first entry, the author deigns to acknowledge that Bush is probably not the anti-christ.

Yet Another Great Steyn Piece

When a man keeps telling you it doesn’t count unless the French and the UN are on board, he’s either a fool or a liar — because no serious person can spend 15 minutes on this issue without understanding that the French state at every level, and quasi-state pillars such as TotalFinaElf, were to all intents and purposes Saddam’s concubines, and that the UN Oil-for-Fraud programme had been transformed into the regime’s most reliable Weapon of Mass Destruction.

If John Kerry is elected, let's hope he's a liar.

My letter to the Guardian

Dear Editor:

I see that your paper has a project to influence the vote in Clark Co, Ohio. I cannot imagine why you feel American voters would be swayed by your arrogant presumption. Since WWII Europeans have been acting as if there is something in the water over here that gives Americans prosperity and a strong military. You ignore the choices/sacrifices we have made regarding taxes, welfare benefits and military spending. Europeans have made different choices. If we allowed Europeans to vote in our elections then we would be just like Europe: weak and dependent on a power we disdain for our very security.

Sorry, but the American President is not President of the World. If your readers feel their needs aren't being met, they should start by writing letter to their own politicians, before concerning themselves with ours.

Sincerely,

See Tim Blair for more on the topic and for where to send your letter.

President of the World?

This experiment by the Guardian is really thought-provoking:

In the spirit of the Declaration of Independence's pledge to show "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind", we have come up with a unique way for non-Americans to express your views on the policies and candidates in this election to some of the people best placed to decide its outcome. It's not quite a vote, but it's a chance to influence how a very important vote will be cast. Or, at the very least, make a new penpal...It works like this. By typing your email address into the box on this page, you will receive the name and address of a voter in Clark County, Ohio.

The Guardian reader should then write to this Ohio voter and make the foreign case for whichever candidate, although, given the Guardians leftward tilt, the goal is to support Kerry. The Guardian will publish a selection of letters on Oct. 20th. I wonder whether any will support Bush.

My first reaction to this was "Buzz off. Don't you people have your own candidates to vote for?" And I'm still leaning in that direction. But it makes me wonder. Does America have so much sway over the lives of non-Americans that they feel disenfranchised by not being able to vote for the US president?

I still can't work up much sympathy for Europeans on this matter. Consider that the EU has a larger population than the US and a comparable GDP. If Europeans wanted to be players, they could be. They act as if there is something in the water over here that gives us prosperity and a strong military. They ignore the choices/sacrifices we have made regarding taxes, welfare benefits and military spending.

Sorry, but POTUS is not President of the World. If the Euros feel their needs aren't being met, they should start by writing letter to their own politicians, before concerning themselves with ours.

(via Little Green Footballs)

Update: I don't know why the Guardian makes the pretense of neutrality when describing this experiment. All three example letters from prominent Britons are no-holds-barred slams against Bush. My favorite quote, from Richard Dawkins, a "professor of the public understanding of science"(?) at Oxford University:

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans traveling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent.

Update: The Guardian devotes a whole page to how Brits can contact the US media, but there is no readily apparent way to contact the Guardian regarding this story. Hmmm. "Here, stupid Americans, listen to our wise advice. Oh, you have an opinion? Not interested."

Update: Tim Blair to the rescue. Here's a list of e-mail addresses to help you offer your opinion to the good folks at the Guardian.

Fallujans turn against foreign fighters

According to the Washington Post:

Local insurgents in the city of Fallujah are turning against the foreign fighters who have been their allies in the rebellion that has held the U.S. military at bay in parts of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland, according to Fallujah residents, insurgent leaders and Iraqi and U.S. officials.

Relations are deteriorating as local fighters negotiate to avoid a U.S.-led military offensive against Fallujah, while foreign fighters press to attack Americans and their Iraqi supporters.

The Iraqis are trying to do what they think is best for Iraq, while the foreign jihadis are using the Iraqis as props in their apocalyptic fantasty. Little wonder its not working out between them.

And if you think its' a bummer to have democracy "forced" on your country:

Among the tensions dividing the locals and the foreigners is religion. People in Fallujah, known as the city of mosques, have chafed at the stern brand of Islam that the newcomers brought with them. The non-Iraqi Arabs berated women who did not cover themselves head-to-toe in black -- very rare in Iraq -- and violently opposed local customs rooted in the town's more mystical religious tradition.

Update : Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz expands on the thought:

The locals might imagine that they hate the Coalition and the provisional government, but a few days or weeks of living under the rule of the insurgents seems to provide a stark reality check. The insurgents are thugs and religious extremists, who terrorize and extort the local population and eventually draw down retaliation from the Coalition. The insurgents lose the struggle for hearts and minds through their own brutality.

Flagwaving Nazis? Yep, that's us.

Also from Carol Gould's article, An American in London:

Just the other day I had a tongue-lashing from an old acquaintance about the ‘appalling flags the Americans put outside their homes, like Nazis all over again.’

This flagophobia from Europeans has been bothering me for a long time. Americans are supposed to understand that flags conjure up for Europeans visions of Nazi Germany. Fine. I'm a child of multi-culturalism. I understand and accept their unique experience. What bothers me is that they cannot seem to do the same for us. It seems impossible for Europeans to understand that, for Americans, flags do not represent fascism. As a matter of fact, for Americans, flags represent the spirit of a country that got up off its collective behind to cross oceans and defeat fascism.

If Europeans are as worldly as they would like us to believe, why do they have such a hard time with this simple concept?

An American in London

Speaking of brownshirts:

Exactly one month ago today, I was traveling on a London bus when a well-dressed woman boarded with her equally-respectable son in his school uniform. Ahead of her was an elderly American woman, who said, ‘I beg your pardon, I didn’t mean to bang into you.’ This prompted a tirade from the Englishwoman -- let’s call her Lady E -- that resembled a verbal assault by a brownshirt against a hapless Jewish pedestrian in 1933. The American -- call her Mrs. A -- sat down and cowered as the tirade continued: ‘I rejoice every time I hear of another American soldier dying! You people all deserve to die in another 9/11. You are destroying the world.’

Read it all for more hair-curling stories of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism including a number from before 9/11 and the mythical "squandering of goodwill".

Update: Perry de Havilland from Samizdata defends the Brits. I suspected that Ms. Gould, running with wealthy, artistic crowd as it seems she does, might run into quite a bit more outspoken anti-Americanism than your average tourist. Such folk do seems to think that not only are they entitled to their opinions, but you are entitled to their opinion as well.

Presidential Debates II

Kerry just said the sanctions worked. Oh My God.
Now he's taking election advise from King Abdullah of Jordan.
"They've always wanted this to be an American effort" Well, God forbid.

Bush is much better than last week. He's talking about how the right decisions are often not popular in Europe. Still, he seems angry too often and a little hopped up.

Good answer on the draft from Bush. More effective and technically advanced equipment required fewer, but better trained people. Bush just stepped all over the moderator to defend the honor of Britain and Poland. I can't believe Kerry keeps dissing our allies. He must feel this works strategically. He's done it far too many times for it to be a mistake.

Good answer from Bush on why he's spending so much money. Recession, war, raising taxes during a recession leads to depression.

Kerry's answer on not raising taxes on the earning less than $200,000 was good. Bush is calling him a liar. He's probably right. But now Kerry implies no one in Missouri could make over $200,000. Hmmm.

Is Bush warming up? Good answer on the Supreme Court nomination question. Funny, likeable Bush peeked through. Too bad it is almost over.

Kerry worked Vietnam into the answer to the abortion question. Jeez. Abortion rights will help prevent aids?

I wish Bush would bring up the bribing of the French and the UN. Kindof hard to build that global coalition if you don't have 100 billion in oil contracts to to buy off the French, Germans and Russians.

Bad last question. Bush gets to talk about Bush's mistakes, then Kerry gets to talk about Bush's mistakes. Shouldn't Kerry have talked about Kerry's mistakes?

I don't know who "won", but watching these debates is making me more comfortable with my choice of Bush. Kerry is explaining his positions (or lack of positions) clearly. And, at least on foreign policy, I just disagree. He disses our real allies in favor of the French. He complains that we're providing all the troops, but he has got to know that France and Germany couldn't provide more than a token force if they wanted to. Of course, they have made it perfectly clear that they don't want to. Yet still he yammers on about bringing our "allies" back. And let's not even get into the whole "Where's Osama" thing?

Must Read

If you haven't seen this yet, you aren't reading enough blogs. But I just got around to reading Bill Whittle's essay on deterrence and you won't be sorry if you take the time to read it. It's hard to excerpt because its's all so good but here's one:

Terrorists don’t seem to be too afraid of stern language. But I do notice, that while the fear of death does not seem to deter these people, the fact of being dead does significantly decrease their operational effectiveness. That’s a casual observation on my part – no real Harvard study to back it up. More of a hunch, really.

and regarding the whole "Why aren't we looking for Osama?" line of bull:

The freaking invasion of a Muslim country by the Great Satan, and this new Caliph, the Leader of the Oppressed, cannot bring himself to shoot a crummy VHS in front of a white wall condemning this outrage? This glory-seeking egomaniac, the New Saladin riding the White Horse across the desert, who practically put out a 10 DVD commemorative set every time the US so much as hiccupped, is now suddenly silent, and has been for three years?

You may call that a Terror Mastermind. I call it a greasy wet spot on the wall of a cave in Afghanistan.

The Right may have digital brownshirts, but the left seem to have the real thing.

Jonah's on a role today. Here's another, less ranty piece that says what I've been trying to figure out how to say:

To his critics, it seems, Bush's error is that he offered too many reasons to go to war, except when he offered too few. When the news is that no WMDs have been found, WMDs become Bush's only reason to go to war. Back when the WMD angle had yet to be verified, the problem was that Bush offered too many rationales. Which is it?

Watching the TV news and listening to NPR lately, I was beginning to think I imagined all those complaints about Bush throwing out everything but the kitchen sink as a reason to go to war. Or maybe I thought of all those reasons, or read them in the National Review, but Bush never gave them publicly. But no:

In major speeches he touted the importance of democratizing the Middle East. Administration officials pointed out that Saddam was the only world leader to applaud 9/11, and that he was a major source of funding for suicide bombers in Israel. They argued that removing Saddam would have a positive impact on the peace process. President Bush made a masterful case to the United Nations that, in the post-9/11 world, the world body could not afford to let a dictator — one who had gassed his own people and invaded a neighbor — flout its countless resolutions with impunity.
These rationales don't add up to 23, but who cares if they do? What important decisions have you ever made in your life that have depended on a single variable. We don't buy cars for a single reason. (Oh, it's blue! I'll take it!) Why should we launch a preemptive war for a single reason?

Exactly.

Good rant from Jonah this morning:

I'm not saying there are no good arguments against the war. I am saying that many of you don't care about the war. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had conducted this war, you would be weeping joyously about Iraqi children going to school and women registering to vote. If this war had been successful rather than hard, John Kerry would be boasting today about how he supported it — much as he did every time it looked like the polls were moving in that direction.

It's this obvious opportunism that makes me roll my eyes most times I hear Kerry speak. You know he's not sincere.

Saddam and the French Connection

Amazing info about just how deep inside Saddam's pocket were the French:

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights. Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counselors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

And here's what Kerry said about getting France and Germany to join the coalition:

If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, "What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?" we'd be in a stronger place today.

Speaking of coalition of the bribed... Is Kerry suggesting we were outbid in the competition for French support?

Than there's this gem from Tony Blair:

"Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't’t working," he said.

I hope so too. But I doubt it. I was stunned to hear Kerry saying Bush should have let the inspectors (and thereby, the sanctions) continue for an unspecified amount of time. In the first presidential debate, Kerry said "We had Saddam Hussein trapped". Yes. Unfortunately, we had the whole population of Iraq trapped with him. Doesn't anyone else remember how evil the US used to be for insisting on sanctions? All the poor, starving Iraqi children and whatnot. The situation was untenable. It seems that the plight of the Iraqi children was compelling only when the solution was to drop the sanctions and let the French collect on their oil contracts. When Bush came up with another solution(Iraqi freedom from sanctions and from Saddam), suddenly we're supposed to believe all those happy, healthy, kite-flying Iraqi moppets were benefiting greatly from the humanitarian sanctions regime.

The Liberal Case for Bush

An interesting column at Tech Central Station got me thinking:

Even after the Vietnam War -- at least when Clinton was president -- the Democrats had the right temperament for guns-and-butter liberalism abroad. The intervention against Slobo's regime in Serbia wasn't slammed as a "unilateral war." It was the Peace Corps with muscles.

But when George W. Bush implemented the Clinton Administration's policy of regime-change in Iraq, democratic nation-building morphed into "imperialism." Overthrowing a totalitarian regime was deemed "reckless." What mattered most was "stability." Just as September 11 taught George W. Bush that liberals had a point all along, liberals started to sound like... conservatives.

I had a feeling that maybe I haven't changed as much as the parties have.

But most [liberal activists] haven't even noticed that George W. Bush has turned Henry Kissinger's noxious "realist" game on its head. He couldn't have made it more clear when he gave the commencement address at the Air Force Academy in June 2004:

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy."

There you have it. This is exactly what liberals have demanded for decades. And now that Bush veers to the left he is jeered by the left for being "reckless," "extremist," "imperialist," and even "fascist." That's precisely the reason some of the left's most stout-hearted members, most famously Christopher Hitchens himself, ditched their old comrades to forge an alliance with the neoconservative right.

Read it all for more reasons for good liberals to vote Republican this year.

Check out this article from the LA Times. It's full of amusing observations like this one:

The European Union wants to strengthen the continent's role in world affairs — some say to complement, others suggest to contain, U.S. ambitions. Seventy-one percent of Europeans polled by the German Marshall Fund believe that the EU should become a superpower. However, such aspirations appear unlikely to become reality: 47% withdrew their support for the idea if it would mean higher military spending.

How do you suppose the European define "Superpower" if a strong military isn't part of the definition? Maybe they just intend to use the United States military (aka NATO) if they run into any trouble on their way to superpower status.

And how about this:

The notion that the U.S. is the "world's policeman" by default angers many and illuminates animosities from regions long suspicious of U.S. policy. Seventy-two percent of Mexicans surveyed by Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas rejected the idea that Washington should be the sole law-and-order power.

I bet a lot of Americans would agree with this sentiment. America shouldn't have to be the sole law-and-order power. Listening to Mexicans complain about this is like mom listening to the kids say "Who does mom think she is picking up our toys all the time and doing our laundry. Jeez." I'm sure we'd be happy to have the EU or the UN pulling their own weight. But see the first quote for just one reason why this isn't going to happen.

(via Allah)

Bunker Busters

KERRY:

"Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

It's moments like this when I think maybe I've been a Republican all along and just didn't know it. This was one of Kerry's clearest moments. There is no nuance here. But I totally disagree.

I can see the Iranians saying "You have nukes, why shouldn't we?' But that's the Iranians. Kerry wants to be the American president. Does he think America can't be trusted not to randomly nuke anyone who annoys us? Does he have no thoughts on why our security situation might be a little different from that of any other county on earth? This isn't the first time I've wondered whose side Kerry is on. It's as if he wants to be president of the world. I want a president who is unambigously the President of the United States.

And I love how horrified he is by the fact that "...we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using." Uh, yeah. Does he think we don't contemplate using the nuclear weapons we have now? If the US or one of our allies (Israel leaps to mind) was facing an existential threat, I think we would do whatever it took. Wouldn't it be nice to have a range of options that would allow us to target, oh say... Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities instead of Tehran and all the innocent people living there?

Presidential Debates I

Okay, the dishes are washed and the kid is in bed. Let the games begin. I'll probably be asleep in 15 minutes.

Why don't they just give the debaters 30 seconds to thank everyone they're going to thank anyway. At least Kerry's not orange.

Okay, we're 10 minutes into this thing and I'm already annoyed. Bush looks annoyed too. I hope he's keeping his cool.

This Osama Bin Laden fetish annoys me. Let's face it: he's either dead or hiding so far inside a cave that he can't even get in camcorder in. Kerry's fine with letting Saddam run loose, but if we don't find Osama's final resting place we've lost the war on terror. Please.

Kerry on Iraq (paraphrase): "It's like FDR invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor"...or invading Germany maybe. "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!"

"I know how these people think" Says Bush referring to Europeans. Tee hee.

Kerry complains that there aren't enough coalition soldiers, but could France, Germany and Belgium really contribute many even if they wanted to? Isn't this just a function of our military being so vastly superior to that of our allies?

Moo-lah's? Is that a new kids show on PBS?

Yikes. I lost a bunch of good stuff when I lost my internet connection. (Yeah that's it. All the really clever stuff was lost.)

Kerry went on about Iraq a lot. Aren't our European allies handling that? And we're all multi-lateral in N. Korea. And in Darfur. Yet these are the problem areas. Hmmmm

Kerry looked smug and Bush looked pissed. Kerry seemed presidential and all. I just don't agree with him on a lot of things and when I do agree, I have a hard time believing him.

Update: "One man spoke gibberish, but has a clear stance. The other man spoke clearly, but his stance is gibberish." My thoughts exactly. (via Allapundit)

Why only bad new from Iraq?

Here's a nice item on why Big Media only gives us the bad news from Iraq. Hint: It's not just liberal bias.

Check out the rest of the site (The Truth About Iraq) while you are there. Interesting stuff from a man who worked in "...Iraq for nine months doing focus groups and polling and advising Ambassador Bremer on Iraqi public opinion...".

(via Tim Blair)

Who's serious about defense and who's not?

Here's a strange incident. Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters wrote an opinion piece in the NY Post defending the reduction of US forces in Germany. I can't get to the piece on line, but he was attacking Democratic critics of the reduction. He was also hard on the Germans. You can read about his opinion pieced and the German Army's reaction here.

The German military has pulled out of the U.S. Army's annual Land Combat Expo, protesting an opinion piece written by a controversial retired U.S. officer slated to be a guest speaker at next week's event.

As a civilian, I wonder if this is significant. What exactly is this Land Combat Expo?

Billed as the Army's premier professional development symposium for troops in Europe, the Land Combat Expo is slated to run Tuesday through Sept. 30. Much of it will center on the Army's achievements through the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We are displaying for our allies and enemies alike what a great democracy, using the on-the-ground presence of our units, supported by families and the backing of the American people, can achieve in defense of liberty", Gen. B.B. Bell, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, wrote encouraging that troops attend the symposium.

It seems like this is partially a public relations event for the US Army and partially and educational conference for the Europeans. After all, their militaries don't have much combat experience, so there are, presumably, things they can learn from the US military.

And they choose not to attend because of an opinion piece in an American newspaper. Of course, it is their right not to attend, but I'm with Peters on this one:

"It's perfectly all right for the Germans to call President Bush a Nazi, it's perfectly all right for the Germans to criticize everything about America, to lionize ["Fahrenheit 911" director] Michael Moore and treat our soldiers as second-class human beings... but they want to try and censor the American media."

"I think the fact that they're pulling out is the best imaginable indicator of how weak our alliance is, how meaningless Germany's contribution is," said Peters. "If they pull out because they can't stand one 800-word opinion piece in an American newspaper, how could we possibly expect them to stand by us in a violent crisis?"

I don't think it's censorship. It's just silly and unserious. Getting worked up over hurt feelings is the business of diplomats. If the Germans were serious about improving their military to the point were they could compete with us, or even just protect themselves, they wouldn't be pitching a hissy fit over something so insignificant.

But then I'm just an ignorant civilian and am open to enlightenment.

(via Davids Medienkritik)

Confessions of the astoundingly naive

Just before the invasion of Iraq, I heard there were going to be some anti-war protests. No big deal, I thought. I mean, how many people would go out on the streets to march on the side Saddam Hussein?

Election officials warn of phone scam

From the Kansas City Star:

Election authorities are warning voters of a scam that could leave victims open to identity theft.

The scam involves someone calling voters and telling them there is a problem with their voter registration. The caller then asks the voter for their date of birth and Social Security number to correct the problem.

However, election officials say the call is a ruse to gain personal information and that they do not place such calls to correct voter registration problems.

Why I'm Voting for Bush II

Why should I bother to write a post when Bill Cristol has already said it perfectly:

But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

Is Kerry proud that his senior adviser's derisive comment about the leader of free Iraq will now be quoted by terrorists and by enemies of the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East? Is the concept of a loyalty to American interests that transcends partisan politics now beyond the imagination of the Kerry campaign?

There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?

Why I'm Voting for Bush

Christopher Hitchens writes in Slate:

...The Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are far too many Democrats that are rooting against the US in Iraq and in the War on Terror generally. I won't get into possible motivations. Many sincerely feel we are doing the wrong thing. But many others are cynically hoping for anything that will make Bush look bad, no matter what it means for the future and security of their own county.

For that reason, even if Lieberman had been nominated, I probably still would have gone with Bush. Lieberman truly wants to fight and win the War on Terror. But he would be surrounded by people who opposed him. This is going to be a long, tough fight and there is no guarantee that Bush can win it. But until a majority of those on the left come to grips with the seriousness of the problem, a Democrat, any Democrat, is bound to fail.

The Bush=Hitler Meme as Fantasy Ideology

I hadn't been able to figure out why this Bush=Hitler thing is so popular with the left. Yes, WWII is always popular with analogy makers, but things seem to have gotten a little out of hand. Do Hollywood stars and university professors really think they are in just as much danger as their counterparts in Nazi Germany? Don't anti-war demonstrators realize that if Bush=Hitler, there would be no demonstration. At first, I thought to myself "Jeez, these people know nothing about Nazi Germany". Then I realized that historical accuracy wasn't the point. But what was the point?

I had a vague notion that for certain people, Bush=Hitler makes them feel important. Standing up against the raised eye-brows of middle America just isn't very daring. And let's face it. That's all most of these protestors are risking. But standing up against Hitler? Well, that's something else entirely.

It just so happens that Civilzation and Its Enemies by Lee Harris covers this psychological phenomena thoroughly. He calls it fantasy ideology. He recalls a conversation he had with a Vietnam war protester in the '60's. This protestor didn't care that the protests might actually be counterproductive to the anti-war cause. He wanted to protest because it was "good for his soul".

Its whole point was what it did for him. And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy - a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors....Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on bridges over the Potomac, he had ...no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props... in his private political psychodrama.

To such fantasists, other people are just props in their fantasy. Of course, Harris is pointing out that America is just a prop for the Islamofasicts. We can't convince them to stop attacking us by modifying our policies on Israel etc., because it's not about us. It's about their fantasy role as David. Our role is to shut up and stand still while they slay Goliath.

This is applicable to the Bush=Hitler crowd. Bush can liberate women from the nightmare of the Taliban, stop the psychotic rule of Hussein and sons, give record amounts of money to fight AIDS in Africa and it just doesn't matter. Because it's not about Bush. Its about feeling like you are part of something heroic, whether you are or not.

Update: The Gallery of "Bush=Hitler" Allusions.

Book Review: Civilization and its Enemies

I was away from the internet most of the weekend while we refinished the livingroom floor. But I managed to read a few pages of Lee Harris' book Civilization and its Enemies: the Next Stage of History. It's fascinating. He discusses how Western societies have forgotten that there is such a thing as an "enemy". We value tolerance and cajole children from the cradle not to be "haters". In other words, we choose not to view others as enemies. We choose not to solve our problems with violence. That's all well and good. We can exercise control over our own opinions and actions.

But this near religious belief in tolerance neglects the other side of the equations. We often have no control over how others view us our act towards us. As Harris puts it: "We are the enemy of those who murdered us on 9/11. And if you are the enemy, then you have an enemy. When you recognize it, this fact must change everything about the way you see the world."

This is the problem with the "NO WAR" crowd. They assume everything will be fine if we just choose not to fight. I suppose that would be true if EVERYONE chose non-violent conflict resolution. But to state the blindly obvious "...if your enemy insists on a war to the finish, then you have no choice but to fight such a war. It is the enemy, and not you, who decides what is a matter of life and death."

It's a puzzle, because the values that make ours a largely peaceful and prosperous society are the opposite of the values needed to defend such a society. Definitely more on Harris' book later.

Democrats for Bush

It seems many Democrats are downright infuriated by folks who claim to be "Democrats for Bush". Take, for example, the love sent to this guy at Democrats for Bush/Chenney 04 (scroll down 3 posts). Also note the whole Zell Miller thing. He went from being a popular southern governor to being a hateful, racist, funny farm escapee as soon as he addressed the Republican convention. I can understand that. I used to feel that way. If you're going to vote for a Republican, doesn't that make you a Republican? Now I'm not so sure.

A party isn't the Borg collective. There will be disagreements and fights over its future direction. The Howard Dean wing of the party is currently in the ascendancy. But just because Joe Liberman may be the only person in the Joe Liberman wing of the party right now, doesn't mean it will always be that way.

The moniker Democrat for Bush is just a way of pointing out that one is unhappy with the direction the party is going. Really unhappy. Unhappy enough to vote for Bush. I reserve the right to go back to the Democrats should they decide to get serious on national security.

Isn't Rathergate a Blast?

The hits just keep on coming:

If this were a game of Clue, we would collectively be jumping up and down and shouting, "the attempted character assassination was committed by Burkett, Mapes, Rather, Lockhart, and McAuliffe, with the fake memo, in the observatory, er, in CBS offices and DNC headquarters!"

I think this may be the first time I've experienced genuine schadenfreude. I do feel a little sorry for Rather. I doubt he understands what the blogosphere is, let alone how it kicked his butt. But Terry McAuliffe...teh hee.

Update: Looks like the Terry McAuliffe part of this story is untrue. I should have known that quote was to good to be true.

Do Iraqis want Democracy?

Just backing up something I said in the comments. Check out this article in the Guardian regarding local elections in April:

The poll was the latest in a series which this overwhelmingly Shia province has held in the past six weeks, and the results have been surprising. Seventeen towns have voted, and in almost every case secular independents and representatives of non-religious parties did better than the Islamists.

I love that the reporter is surprised. Is it naive to think that people would choose freedom over repression? I'm sure most Iraqis would rather have had anyone but the United States deliver their freedom, but.... any port in a storm.

The First Doubts Appear

Six years ago, my husband and I settled down, bought our first house and started taking the daily paper. In the paper was a syndicated column by a guy named Jonah Goldberg. I'd never heard of him before, but I liked his column and started saying things like "This Goldberg guy is right on the money." Well, imagine my surprise when I happened upon that right-wing website, National Review, and discovered that Mr. Goldberg was an editor there. Hmmmm.

Neither Fish Nor Fowl

So, am I a democrat or a republican? Good question. I voted for Dukakis (I was 18, what can I say), Clinton twice and Gore. But this time I'm voting for Bush. So, I could be a 9/11 democrat, just voting for Bush out of fear of terrorism. Or I could have unknowingly become a republican at some point.

I'm reading If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat by Hugh Hewitt. He writes about how difficult it is for most people to change their party identification. He says it's like switching from Ford to Chevy. Not impossible, but not easy either. Here's a quote:

Voters who have great amounts of compassion and who are Democrats have a hard time pulling the Republican lever, At a psychological level, they see it as voting against the poor.

That is so true. I mean, who would want to vote for the mean people? I think 9/11 had everthing to do with why I am willing to reevaluate all those ingrained political habits. More Hugh:

The shock of 9/11 and the choices of the Democrats have made in its aftermath have put many people's party affiliation up for grabs. Longtime Democrats have looked up from the ashes of lower Manhattan and concluded that they have changed.

That is why I think Bush will win. I can't believe I'm the only Gore voter who feels this way.

What passes for excitement in my life

So the other day I sent an e-mail to Jonah Goldberg, my favorite writer at The National Review , and he posted it in The Corner. I was unreasonably excited.

I just told him that I thought it was a bad idea for the dems to constantly harp on Bush's National Guard service because I, as a Gore voter, had not realized he even flew fighter planes. Let's face it. The Democrats' line on Bush is that he was a classic underachiever in his youth, partying and goofing around until he turned 40. Now how does being a fighter pilot fit into that picture? I'm no expert, but I'd say you couldn't do that while nursing a hang-over. That he flew fighter planes for four years instead of the six years he signed up for doesnt' really bother me. The Vietnam war was over and the military was drawing down its forces.

And, by the way, it was 30 frickin' years ago! You've got four years of his performance as Commander-in-Chief to look at. You may not like how he's done, but you don't have to guess. You don't have to comb his early life for clues. The last four years should tell you all you need to know.