The Making Of A 9/11 Republican

Interesting op/ed by a California liberal born and bred, turned 9/11 Republican. My upbringing wasn't as liberal as hers, but I really related to this:

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.

Although my initial agreement with voices on the right centered on the war on terrorism, I began to find myself in concurrence with other aspects of conservative political philosophy as well. Smaller government, traditional societal structures, respect and reverence for life, the importance of family, personal responsibility, national unity over identity politics and the benefits of living in a meritocracy all became important to me. In truth, it turns out I was already conservative on many of these subjects but had never been willing to admit as much.

In my case, it was less a matter of realizing how "right" I am than of realizing how "left" the left is. (via LGF)

Lebanon's PM resigns

Wow. Lebanon's pro-Syrian PM resigned before a vote of no-confidence, which he was expected to win. Perhaps it was that crowd of 200,000 that persuaded him.

It's great that the US isn't a big player in this. Protesters can't be accused of being American puppets and we can't be accused of forcing democracy on an unwilling populous.

Update: Lots more at Across the Bay.

Dirty War

Saw most of Dirty War on PBS. The after movie discussion panel was actually pretty informative, although not comforting. The Homeland Security rep. put in a plug for reauthorizing the Patriot Act, since the movie police failed to stop the terrorists partially due to poor communication between agencies. Warren Rudman emphasized that there was no way to guarantee that such an attack won't happen here. In fact, he seems pretty sure that there will be such an attack. The terrorism expert also responded to a question by saying that the main threat is from Islamic terrorism.

Essentially, the DHS guy said we have to stop it, because we can't prepare for it and Rudman said we have to prepare for it because we can't stop it.

I'll have a "big frosty glass of chill-the-hell-out."

James Lileks puts the parenting thing in perspective. Refering to the stress of organizing a class party:

Well. It’s too bad Amazon cannot overnight a sense of perspective, because there are, in truth, tougher situations to find yourself in. I’d like to reserve “hating everyone and everything and going insane” for the moment when I’m fleeing the attack helicopters that have come to wipe out my tribe.

(via Joanne Jacobs)

They wrote a book about my life

Confessions of a Slacker Mom

Newsweek has an interview with the author and an essay on the topic by Anna Quindlen. (via Ex-Donkey)

I must admit that, while my housekeeping slackerness is entirely my own choice, my child-rearing slackerness is enforced by my daughter. In her first three years, she was violently shy. Should a stranger deign to look at her or, God forbid, address her, she would scream bloody murder. She startled more than one well-meaning old lady in the supermarket. Play groups were just not going to happen. Gymboree - forget it. Church nursery - pleeese.

She's progressed a lot in the past year, but I still wouldn't want to plunk down the money for a class she may or may not participate in.

But, as a stay-at-home mom, I can relate to the need to justify one's existence. On one hand, having a special needs child provides a built in justification for staying home. Day care would have been impossibly hard on my sensitive little one. But on the other hand, there's the feeling that you should always be doing something to help her catch up or branch out. And if she hasn't caught up, well then, you must not be doing it right.

Of course, if I worked out of the home, then I'd feel people were thinking her problems stemmed from languishing in daycare.

I guess only the mother can protect herself from parenting anxiety by assuming a less defensive posture. Easier said than done, I know. But consider this: nearly half of the people in this country and most of the rest of the world think my politics are dead wrong. I couldn't care less. Someone came to my blog and called me simple-minded. Whatever. It may be annoying, but I wouldn't even dream of being wounded. Who are they? A bunch of people who are wrong, that's who!

Why is it nearly impossible to take that attitude towards parenting. I suppose it's because I am personally responsible for my kid, whereas I'm just one of millions voting for the president . Also, my kid means more to me than politics.

But I try to remember that another mother isn't trying to suggest anything about my parenting skills when she talks about little Bobby's amazing talent on the violin or whatnot. Our kids are so central to our lives that it's just natural to talk about them a lot.

Hey, maybe one of the blessings of having a challenging child is that there is no way in hell we could get everything done. My life is so far from June Cleaver's that there's no reason to even try to keep up. I have already been forced to consider my daughter's need (and my own), and jettison most non-necessities. I've already prioritized, so when someone mentions another enrichment activity they're taking the kids to, I automatically know whether that's something my daughter could handle. Usually, it's not, so there's no pressure to add it.

Whew. Blogging - better than therapy.

Suddenly Bloggers are Everywhere

Up to Date (local call-in show) just did an hour on bloggers. It was pretty basic stuff, but one line I liked, refering to the multitude of small bloggers: "In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 people."

Heh, I should be so lucky.

West Hollywood to build monument to Soviet Soldiers

Okay, this is a strange :

"...West Hollywood is building a World War II memorial to honor the sacrifices of Soviet veterans like Sapozhnikov and their fallen comrades. City officials will unveil the monument May 8, a day before former Soviet countries mark the anniversary of the war's end, in a park located in the heart of the area's Russian-speaking immigrant community.

I'm just not sure it's appropriate to build a monument to the fighting forces of a foreign country, especially one that's been our enemy for much longer than the 4 years it was our ally. Why do these people think we kept 300, 000 troops in Europe during the Cold War? Who would those troops have been fighting? Yes, the same military this monument is intended to honor. And then there is this:

Surrounded by Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, West Hollywood has about 37,000 residents. Many of its 6,000 Russian-speakers began immigrating to the region in the 1970s to escape religious and political persecution.

So why not a monument to Soviet dissidents and the millions of people killed during the 70 years of communist rule?

via On the Wire, who has more on Stalin's contribution to "world peace and justice."

Mark Steyn's website is back

Here's something from his latest:

The folks that have been under the UN wing the longest - indeed, the only ones with their own permanent UN agency and semi-centenarian "refugee camps" - are the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth: the Palestinians. UN territories like Kosovo are the global equivalent of inner-city council estates with the blue helmets as local enforcers for the absentee slum landlord. By contrast, a couple of years after imperialist warmonger Bush showed up, Afghanistan and Iraq have elections, presidents and prime ministers.

Good Charlie Rose show with Bloggers

Wonkette, Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan and Joe Trippi sitting around the table talking about the influence of blogs.

Charlie asked Joe Trippi if bloggers could elect the next president, referring to the money a politician could raise online. But I suspect the blogosphere may have elected this president by destroying the image Kerry was trying to create for himself. Bush was vulnerable to the kind of candidate Kerry pretended to be.

Update: More from Jim Geraghty:

Want to know something kind of surprising?

Last night’s Charlie Rose show about blogs left me thinking more highly of all the panelists - Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Trippi and (gasp) even Wonkette.

Me too.

Moral Confusion at UN

This Reuters story via Tim Blair:

UN peacekeepers have been banned from all sex with the local population in Congo because of widespread, continuing abuse of women and girls ...

UN regulations for soldiers usually forbid sex with anyone under 18 and forced prostitution. But often officials found there was a fine line between forced and willing sex.

Yes, women often find themselves thinking "Do I want to have sex with this guy, or am I being forced? I just can't tell."

Idiots.

Update: Michelle Malkin has more.

Sweet Justice

Seems a Minnesota white supremisist turned out to be a bit "racially impure" himself. His good friends in the movement dumped him and he lost his $1 million per year record company, charmingly named Panzerfaust. (via Right Thinking)

Update: Out of morbid curiosity I went to the Panzerfaust website which now forwards to a bunch of white supremisists who are self-certified actual white people. I'm not going to link because...ewwwww. But who would actually buy a reproduction Iron Cross or a Swastica pendant? I guess the same people who would buy an album titled Das Reich Kommt Wieder. And they know who really brought the slaves to America. I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Glenn Reynolds remembers the not so distant past:

...we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.

That man was Bill Clinton...

I've always maintained that it wasn't me who changed, it was the Democrats. Democrats used to be ideologically committed to spreading freedom and democracy. Why the change:

I think it's jealousy. Bush-hatred has become all-consuming among a large section of the Democratic Party, and they can't stand the thought of anything that reflects well on him, even if it's good for the country, and if it's something that was their idea originally.

Protesting Democracy

It's sad that so much of the world won't celebrate with the Iraqi people because of the petty and childish dislike of George W.

There was actually a protest against the election in Madrid. So it's OK if the the Spanish use democracy to suck up to terrorists, but when the Iraqis use it defeat terrorists, it's time to take to the streets. Let's hope these losers are a small portion of the Spanish population that didn't have anything better to do with their Sunday.

Courage

A quote from Jeff Jarvis' extensive coverage of the Iraqi election:

This morning, I asked myself whether I would go to vote if I thought I could be bombed at the polling place or shot because of my blue finger. I don't think I'd have that courage. Most Americans would not (hell, most of us don't vote even in the lap of safety). Remember that every single Iraqi who came to vote today is a victory for democracy.

Amen. It's over for the fascists. High voter turnout in the face of an all-out assault on voters is a blue-stained finger in the eye of the "insurgency". Their terrorism failed to terrorize. They're losers.

As George Will said on This Week this morning, the Iraqis used to have two unappealing options: support the fascists who wanted to bring back brutal dictatorship (with plenty of severed heads and scattered body-parts to sweeten the deal) or support the American occupation. Now they have a third option: their own democratically elected government.

They faced down those fascist bastards today. I have no doubt they will continue to do so.

Condi has more class in her little finger

than Democrats have in their whole party. She's on This Week being asked about the large number of Senators who voted against her. She doesn't play the race card or blame post-election sour grapes. She just said she's grateful for the 85 senators who voted for her and then went on to talk about how great everyone at the State Dept. has been.

Better Late Than Never

Tim Russert is grilling Kerry on whether or not he was in Cambodia and the whole lucky hat thing. Now?? 2 months after the election? What is the point of this? Kerry, by the way, is spinning like a top.

Now he's going after Kerry on the form 180 thing (to release his military records). Kerry just said he will sign the form, if the people who challenged him to sign will release their own records. The only other person relevant to this issue (George W), released his records before the election. What is this, kindergarten?

Update: More on Kerry's appalling appearance on Meet the Press.

Iraqis Vote

The Iraqi elections are shaping up to be a big success. My only real concern was that devastating violence would make it impossible for the Iraqis to celebrate this historic day. Well, the polls are closed in Iraq and "only" 36 people have been killed by terrorists (so far). It's sounds callous, but I was really expecting a lot worse.

Here's an excellent point from Glenn Reynolds:

I'll observe, as James Taranto did last week, that high turnout among the Afrikaners wasn't seen as the test of the South African elections' legitimacy. Likewise, high turnout in pro-Ba'ath areas shouldn't be the test here.

Absolutely true, but expect the press to harp endlessly on it.

John Kerry is telling us not to be too excited about the election since there is no way Bush can do the things he needs to do to succeed in Iraq. What an A**. Everytime I see him, I thank God he's not president.

Take all the pie you can, we'll make more

Jay Nordlinger is posting his notes from the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. This thought jumped out at me:

It is axiomatic at Davos — among the people I tend to meet — that an economy, including the world economy, is a pie. To the extent that one person has a bigger piece, another person has a smaller piece (and there are no other pies in the oven).

I suppose that is sometimes true. For example, when Yasser Arafat dies a billionaire, one can safely assume that he ran off with most of the Palestinian pie. While the pie analogy could be useful when discussing those third world leaders who squirrel away what assets their countries have in Swiss bank accounts, people who take this attitude are never referring to the likes of Arafat. Such references are always directed at the United States.

Presumably this attitude results from socialism having much more influence in Europe than in the US. To socialists, all economic transactions are win/lose, never win/win. They never try to make more pie. It never occurs to them, for example, that those folks with all that pie burning a hole in their pockets (to mix metaphors) might want to trade some pie for an item or service that you have to offer. Oh look, now you have more pie. You might even have to hire some pie lovers to help you out.

And then there's technological innovation and economies of scale working to give your pie more purchasing power. Now if I can come up with three ways to make more pie, why can't those nuanced thinkers of Europe figure it out? For great examples of pie making (with no annoying pie analogies), I highly recommend this article by Virginia Postrel.

Terrorist vs VW

VW wins. I doubt you'll be able to keep from laughing, though you may feel guilty about it later. (via Michelle Malkin)

Bush's Speech

My favorite line:

America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

That should be obvious to even the most casual observer, yet I am forever hearing on the news shows "So Bush wants to bring democracy to these countries, whether they want it or not?" Yes, Mr. Talking Head, that's exactly right. Bush, for his own nefarious reasons, is going to force the blissfully ignorant little natives into a state of political freedom which they aren't suited for and don't really desire. We know this will somehow advance Haliburton's interests, we just haven't quite figured out how. One would think it would be easier to buy the oil (or whatnot) from one corrupt dictator than to win the support of an elected legislative body, but if Bush supports it, we know there must be an imperialist agenda. Sigh.

Honestly, this speech appeals to the liberal in me. It's idealistic and optimistic:

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

What's not to like? Except for the possible pro-life line in there, why can't liberals get behind this? It saddens me to see them so angry and pessimistic, as if their only agenda is to be against anything Bush wants, even things liberals should want. "If Bush wants more fuzzy kitties, then we think all fuzzy kitties should die."

Update: Powerline imagines the Democratic response to Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address:

The president harped on the "colored slaves." He claimed that "this interest was somehow the cause of the war." But the president well knows that ending slavery was never part of the original justification for fighting this war. It is simply an after-the-fact rationalization, developed after it became clear that we had no plan to defeat the South. Nor can the president honestly claim that the slaves are better off in their current, parlous state than they were prior to the war when they lived in peace and tranquility.

That's what I'm talkin' about. (via Instapundit)