Quote of the Day

"Kerry is this year’s Bob Dole — the guy you make do with."
-Mark Steyn

The latest blog

Most of you know that in addition to this site, I also post over at Blogs for Bush and update an event list for the New York Young Republican Club blog. Well, I've handed over the reins for the latter to a smashing young man and will now be doing a new site that will seek to list all events for rightwingers in NYC. No group will be excluded and I will try to have a complete list of all events on the site. November 2004 is just around the corner and my new site will keep you updated with all kinds of events to get you involved. Bookmark it and check back often.

If it works, why not?

Israel, Hizbollah Make Long-Awaited Prisoner Swap

Hezbollah warns it may kidnap more Israelis

Both headlines from today. Seriously, you couldn't make this up.

The role of parties

Jonah writes that they do matter, above and beyond the candidates they produce:

Now, many conservatives have been writing me in recent weeks, in response to my increasingly critical comments about President Bush, to say that maybe conservatives shouldn't vote for him. I think that's silly. On any issue of major importance to conservatives, there isn't a Democrat running who wouldn't be an order of magnitude worse. Indeed, even if, say, Joe Lieberman's Joe-Mentum had caught on, and he won the nomination, he would still be filling his administration from a Democratic bench. The gravitational forces of the party largely determine the course of policy. The Democratic dogma is instinctually to err on the side of government action. Republican dogma, at least for now, is to err on the side of individual initiative and the market.

What the other side says

Snopes.com once debunked a story about an Australian dentist writing an article called 'What is an American?' The piece was one of those sappy 'Americans are great' pieces that sometimes work and sometimes don't. In the debunking, the Snopes people wrote 'As the reaction to pieces from a Canadian broadcaster and a Romanian journalist demonstrate, Americans take great delight in encomiums to America and Americans authored by citizens of other nations.' It's true. I definitely enjoy reading about how great we are in the foreign press. Partly because such pieces are rare and partly because it just sounds truer coming from a non-American.

Anyway, that line stuck in my head and I find myself feeling that same way when Democrats make pro-Bush arguments. I know I can be dismissed as a loony Republican but people like Peter who voted for Clinton and Nader and people like Doug, who worked for Clinton, as well as many of my blogless friends, can make the arguments sound truer. Check out Doug's post from Tuesday about why he's not voting Democrat in '04 (but he's still holding out hope for '08). It's a great read.

Reagan rocks.

I'd like to say a public thank you to Peter's brother Kevin, who is proudly serving his country in the United States Navy, for giving me a terrific book on Reagan as a present.

If there are any New Yorkers interested, the NYYRC is having a birthday party for the Gipper, on Feb. 4, featuring John O'Sullivan Editor, National Interest; Editor-at-Large, National Review Former Special Advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Anthony Coles, Former Deputy Mayor, NYC. Roy Innis, Chairman of CORE. Master of Ceremonies: Deroy Murdock, Syndicated Columnist, Scripps Howard News Service.

Also, Fox New's Julia Gorin and NY Post's Robert George will be honoring the man with a stand-up comedy show on Feb.6.

More info on both events here.

Two stories I wish were getting more attention in the US

1) Hutton castigates BBC over 'unfounded' Iraq report
Now apologise, says Blair

2) Anti-war nations 'took bribes' before war began

UPDATE: Yes, I realize that the blogosphere is all over it.
FURTHER UPDATE: Ok, the first story is now all over the news. I'm just, clearly, impatient.

EVEN FURTHER UPDATE: A great read about both of these news stories. Via Instapundit.

You're not selling out

Even I know it's ok to be a hippie when there are members of the opposite sex involved, Yaron, it's ok.

State of the Union

Oschisms has an interesting post (and not just because I'm mentioned in it) about what living in a political bubble does to you. While it has been often mentioned on this site, and many others, that the reasons for going into Iraq extend far beyond the WMD question (though, again, there was no doubt that Saddam had these weapons since he had used them and never proven that he had destroyed them), he writes that no goverment official has been as blatant about the other reasons as the president was in his SOTU. It's a post-9/11 reason to need to change that region of the world that had become a cesspool breeding ground for terrorists and their supporters. Yes, it is ambitious to bring democracy and real stability to a region that has seldom seen it but it is not impossible and it is a worthy goal for our own self interest. The longer we ignore the conditions of these countries, the worse it will be for us. If there is one major reason I adore this president is that he has the guts to say so.

Missing Clinton

This poor man lost two sons in the war in Iraq and his job. Feel sorry for him?

E-Begging

Please support this site by using the Amazon link to your left. And, of course, don't forget the wish list. :-)

Got Botox?

Dawn Summers first pointed out that Kerry really needed some filler for those deep lines, and now I am convinced he has had some. The forehead is definitely less scrunchy and, on a slightly different note, someone has been visiting the tanning booth. See evidence below:





UPDATE: Drudge has some great pictures here.

Anti-Zionism=Anti-Semitism

Via BOTW:

Who's Like Hitler?

While various nut-jobs find thrills and amusement by comparing President Bush to Hitler, one can find genuine echoes of Nazism, albeit rather faint ones, if one looks in the right places. London's Independent reports on a new poll by the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, which surveyed residents of nine European countries--Austria, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain--about their attitudes toward Jews. Among the findings:

35% said Jews "should stop playing the victim because of the Holocaust and persecution of 50 years ago."

16.1% said it "would be better if the state of Israel did not exist and the Palestinians got their land back."

40% think Jews have a "particular relationship with money."

"In all the countries," notes the Jerusalem Post, "anti-Semitic sentiment was positively correlated with anti-Israel sentiment." And the Independent notes Europeans are as ignorant as they are bigoted: "The people polled were asked four questions about the Middle East conflict. Nearly one-third proved clueless. Only 6.2 per cent gave correct answers."

What's that?

Oschisms found himself doing angry sightseeing while in DC.

On boring speech and which side has won the verbal war.

My lord, Mark Steyn kills me. As usual, go read the entire, hilarious thing.

After spending the best part of a year listening to the Democrats' strolling minstrels strumming their way round the White Mountains, I'm staggered by how little any of them have to say. If you go to a Kerry rally – something of an oxymoron, but let that pass – the senator's stump speech is a karaoke tape of floppo populist boilerplate. If he'd downloaded it for free from the internet, that'd be one thing. Instead, he paid a small fortune to hotshot consultant Bob Shrum, who promptly faxed over the same old generic guff he keeps in the freezer: "I (insert name here) will never stop fighting for ordinary people against the powerful interests that stand in your way."

This shtick worked so well for Shrum's previous clients - President Dick Gephardt (1988), President Bob Kerrey (1992), President Al Gore (2000) and President Insert Namehere (2008) that he evidently sees no reason why it shouldn't elect a fifth president this time round. Throw in a few mandatory sneering references to Enron, Halliburton and Attorney-General John Ashcroft plus a handful of local hard-luck stories of doubtful general application – "47-year-old Arlene Claxton of Hooksett worked 20 years to build up her hairdressing business only to contract a rare skin disease from a conditioner manufactured overseas by corporations George W Bush has given tax breaks to in order to export American jobs abroad to jurisdictions lacking environmental safeguards thanks to a sweetheart deal negotiated by a lobbyist for Halliburton and then learnt that her health insurer wouldn't cover the cost of treatment because etc etc."

Conclusion: That's the real story here: for all Howard Dean's talk that you can't beat Bush with "Bush Lite", the candidates who'll survive to the southern primaries next week are doing their best not to sound anti-war, anti-tax cuts or anti-guns. In other words, even in the Democratic primary, this election's now being fought on Republican terms.

One of my boyfriend's ex-bandmates (sorry, Ethan, I'm sure you're a stellar guy but jeeeeez do you have some bad, unoriginal ideas) quoted, on his blah blah 'Dick Cheney is a thug', 'we live in a police state', 'Bush is Hitler' blog (scroll down to January 8th), a post from Calpundit on how liberalism has won the rhetorical war. At the time, I thought it was extreme wishful thinking. Now it's just funny.

Radio

Peter was really incensed that my rental car's cd player was broken. Read all about it.

No self control.

Al Franken tackles heckler at Howard Dean rally. Here is yet another move by liberals to silence free speech. Imagine what would happen if a Republican had done this. There would be marches and candle-lightings and all kinds of celebrities would congratulate themselves on speaking out. Urg.

Via The Corner.

More election day betting

Speaking of predictions, Dawn Summers wasn't happy with losing our dinner bet so we've come up with a double or nothing situation: I say Dean wins tonight, she says it's Kerry. If I win, she is taking both Peter and I to Roy's. If she wins, she doesn't owe me anything.

Catching up on dissing Gephardt

Gephardt dropped out of the race so quietly and quickly that I didn't get a chance to point and laugh and say 'who's the miserable failure now, eh?'

New Hampshire Prediction

Andrew Sullivan is betting so I'll put my own prediction out there: Dean 32, Kerry 25, Edward 15, Clark 11.

Blogs for Bush has an open thread where you can see other predictions and post some of your own.

Oy Vey Joe

Lagging in the polls, Lieberman sought support from independents who helped Sen. John McCain of Arizona to victory in the 2000 Republican primary.

"It matters a lot to me that a lot of McCainiacs in New Hampshire have become Liebermaniacs," he said at a rally at the statehouse in Concord.

Better crazy than boring

Mark Steyn on Howard Dean (I strongly recommend you skip my synopsis and go read the whole thing):

As some readers may recall, having spent a decade watching Dean govern Vermont as a dull centrist, I've long argued that the crazy guy running around this last year was just an act, a bit of canny opportunism from a minor local pol who needed to get himself a national profile in nothing flat. Unfortunately, Dean's simulated Mad How disease was so convincing he caught a touch of it himself. If you've seen ''Lost In Translation,'' you'll know there's a marvelous scene where sad middle-age Bill Murray has a night out with Scarlett Johansson and comes to life doing karaoke versions of '80s rock songs. That's Dean. He's right: He's not a rock star. But for months on end he's been doing rock-star karaoke with legions of Scarlett Johansson-type college cuties. You can't blame the guy for getting carried away.

Not even Al Gore, in his bewildering array of alternative identities, managed to be both crazy and comatose in the same week. The governor seems to have come up with his own variation on the fiscally conservative/socially liberal shtick: Vote for Dean -- fiscally balanced, emotionally unbalanced.

Via Daily Lunch.

There's something about Dawn

Dawn Summers has 21 questions she'd like to hear the next debate moderator ask the remaining gang of 7. They are so hilarious they'll almost make you forget she is a crazy leftist.

On being dorky

I love being a political junkie, and therefore a huge dork. Julian Sanchez has a cool piece about all of these 'conservativism is cool' or 'libertarianism is cool' articles floating around right now and how "being obsessed with politics of any sort is unlikely to be considered 'cool' by large sections of the public anytime real soon."

Easy Prediction: Clark is a dead man

Calling Michael Moore a 'man of conscience', Wesley Clark, on Tim Russert, refused to repudiate Moore's trademark idiotic comments about Bush being 'a deserter'. I think few things will make me happier than Moore's candidate being crushed and leaving Moore again confused (see elections 2002). Clark is, by far, the worst candidate in the race. He makes Howard Dean look like a well adjusted genius. I'm hoping Clark pulls ahead of the pack, if for no other reason than for the media to eat him alive and spit him out. I'm not worried about Clark. There are other jobs he seems to enjoy.

Oh the places I've been

I know I've forgotten some, the list is long and not alphabetical.



create your own visited country map.

Anyone have any idea what that green spot is on the upper right part of South America? I can't figure it out.

Via Miguel.

Judge us by who are enemies are

"Michael Moore represents the America we love" writes a French newspaper, according to Merde in France. I guess that's why I'm more than ok with them hating us. If the French hate us now more than ever, George W. Bush must be doing something right.

3-2-1 self destruct

CLARK BLAMES FOX NEWS, REPUBLICAN BIAS FOR DEBATE SHOWING...Yeah, it's Fox News that made him look stupid.

Gets coveted endorsement of Ted Danson.

Via Drudge.

More CPAC- Ann Coulter rocks

She really does. No matter what you think about her, seeing her live is an experience. I'm not a big fan of her writing but she is so captivating on tv and even more so in person. The crowd went wild when she came on to the stage to the sound of 'American Woman' by Lenny Kravitz (she exited to 'She's a Brick House'). Some of her classic lines (and yes, she seems to be particularly interested in attacking Bill Clinton and Wes Clark, they're pretty easy targets):

"Edwards, Kerry and Dean came out of Iowa in a 3 way race. When Bill Clinton heard the news, he said 'I remember my first Iowa 3 way like it was yesterday'"

"Calling Bush a draft dodger, which is not true, will join the rest of the Democrats' arguments such as 'you're stupid' and 'Halliburton!!'"

"Bill Clinton is so hellbent on getting Clark elected he's gone as far as not endorsing him."

"Clark claimed that the White House told him, after 9/11, to go on tv and blame it on Saddam. When questioned, he changed it to 'people around the White House'. When further pressed, he said it was someone at 'a Middle East thinktank in Canada'. When told that there was no Middle East thinktank in Canada, Clark said it was someone from the Menachem Begin Think Tank in Israel that has a branch in Montreal. Well, at least Clark is getting the hang of being a Democrat- blame everything on the Jews."

"Democrats have adopted a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in regards to Clark's sanity."

"It is so great to be among rightwingers" (after a lengthy standing ovation).

More CPAC news

I couldn't get in to see Dick Cheney kick off the conference but today's Note provides a nice summary on what he said and also explains the girl in the wedding dress I saw walking around (scroll to the bottom).

Blogging CPAC

There is something about being in a hotel with, literally, thousands of conservatives that makes me smile all day long. The booths are terrific, the people are great and the speakers are just the icing. My favorite speaker, so far, was, yet again, Wayne LaPierre. He just has something that is so passionate and energizing. Like the last time I saw him, his talk focused on the First Amendment, rather than the Second, and yet again his call to arms against the ridiculous Campaign Finance law is infectious. The NRA is figuring out ways to legally maneuver around the law and LaPierre announced the beginning of a 24 hour news site that the NRA will launch thereby being allowed to voice opinions up to the day of the election. If LaPierre is speaking near you, take my advice and go see him. Several standing ovations later, you'll be glad you did.

Join the NRA here, contribute here and join me at their annual meeting.

Matt Drudge is Da Man

Whiny, tiny Moby, fresh from being embarrassed publicly by Eminem (I particularly liked Moby at some awards show accepting an award and including 'I just want everyone to know I have no problem with Eminem' in his acceptance speech. There's a word for that in Brooklyn but this is a family webpage and the word for female dog seems inappropriate.) has started a brawl with Matt Drudge. Apparently, Drudge dared link to Margaret Cho's rant against Bush (complete with the Bush=Hitler comparison that all the kiddies are into these days) and Cho got some hate mail. This expression of free speech by Cho prompted some free speech from others. Moby thinks this is unacceptable. Don't stupid rightwingers know that they're supposed to shut up and take it? What the hell is wrong with us!?!? Calling himself 'outraged', Moby says that Drudge 'exposed her to some really irresponsible and vile reactions.' Ohmig-d! She was exposed! Poor her. This ain't Cuba. Drudge responds with a great quip: 'Those E-mails are mild compared to what I receive on a daily basis. That is the nature of the Internet. Moby and his friends just have to 'butch up'.

The funny thing is, Moby has yet again chosen to insult someone a lot bigger than him (both in fame, influence and, well, size) and again it is someone that holds grudges. Drudge is the Eminem of the internet. Just like insulting Eminem will get you song after song after song, insulting Drudge will get you link after link etc. These are two men, who just don't let go. Eminem is still rapping about Ja Rule, years after Ja Rule first fired at him. After idiot writer Michaelangelo Signorile wrote something bad about Drudge in the NY Press, Drudge pulled the NY Press from his coveted links list, also pulling individual links to editor Russ Smith's page and then-NY Press writer Taki's page. When Drudge got in a tussle with Bill O'Reilly, the Drudge Report featured every unflattering story on O'Reilly, and went out of its way to highlight O'Reilly's poor radio numbers. Now, I love Drudge and I love that he is big enough that he can hold grudges so publicly (as I mentioned in a previous post, I'm a big fan of vengeance), just like a certain bleach haired rapper can. You know every time Moby will make a misstep, Drudge will be upholding his right to free speech and linking to it so millions of people can know about it.

Via Drudge (where else?).

My favorite Dem Debate moment

....summarized nicely by Andrew Sullivan:

FORGIVING PETER JENNINGS: Yes, of course, he's beyond self-important. Some of his questions seemed longer than many of the answers. (Brit Hume, of course, was great.) But I have to say Jennings' question to Al Sharpton about whom he'd appoint to the Federal Reserve was inspired. Sharpton flailed in ways you rarely see a politician flail. It was a remarkable, rhetorical stiletto wound. And oh so gentle.

For those that missed the debate, Jennings asked Sharpton who he would appoint to head the Federal Reserve. Sharpton gave some long winded answer about how all people need to be 'elevated' and how the IMF doesn't do that currently. Jennings said 'I asked about the Federal Reserve.' You could just tell that Sharpton had no idea what the Federal Reserve actually did so he just babbled a typical Sharpton 'us v. them' answer that including more talk on 'elevating' people. He may be a funny man (a laughingstock, actually) but the Democrats prove what an unserious party every time Sharpton opens his mouth.

Update: NRO's John Derbyshire on the debate: 'Let's see: Edwards knows squat about Islam, Clark is agnostic about whether my President is a "deserter," Sharpton doesn't know what the Federal Reserve Board is, Kucinich wants to pay my kids' college fees (you know, from out of that big brass-bound chest in the White House basement, the one labeled GOVERNMENT MONEY), Dean has a cold, Kerry served in Vietnam, Lieberman mnghhh. '

For those that didn't watch, Edwards was asked how much he knew about Islam. The answer? Not much at all.

Another Update: John Derbyshire nails the Sharpton question.

On the phone with Dawn Summers

Me (reading the Note): 'Oh look, —2:00 pm: Gov. Dean campaigns door to door. Newport, N.H.'

Dawn Summers: 'Yeah, probably threatening people'

The lame comparison.

Dawn Summers thinks Maureen Dowd is soooo clever in her comparison of Howard Dean's naming the states fiasco to George W. Bush's naming the countries that have troops in Iraq. I disagree. First of all, Dowd's claim is that we didn't have a 'real' coalition but rather a 'gaggle of poodles and lackeys'. How insulting is that to the Japanese or Italian, soldiers killed in battle in Iraq? Not to mention the Brits who have a sizable presence in Iraq. Dowd doesn't seem to realize that holding your hands over your ears and screaming 'Bush lied!' does not an argument make. There is a coalition of countries in Iraq. Check the wounded and killed list to dispel any doubts about that.

Second, Dowd and Dawn focus on the wrong part of Dean's outburst. It isn't so much the satanic way he sounded when he rattled off the states as it is the squeal with which he ended his tyriad. Dowd writes that Dean's crazy shouting scared people off but that Bush's tough talk only made him look cool to his supporters. She's right. Bush can pull off the tough talk, while Dean can emit a squeal that (according to Doug) Howard Stern can then mix on his radio show as the female orgasm. There is nothing creepier than someone who talks tough but can't follow it up. You just know they're going to get hurt and there is a good chance they'll drag you down with them.

Keep looking, ladies, and stop with the straw grasping. There are plenty of things to pick on Bush about, being similar to Dean is just not one of them.

Heartbroken

Vincent Gallo is my one and only celebrity love. I've covered this in depth here (scroll down to Thursday, June 13) and here. I can not begin to describe how I feel for having missed this.

Via Oschisms.

Crazy Dean

By now you've heard about Howard Dean's insane howl in which he showed off his knowledge of states' names and asked the crowd a few times if they 'know something'.

Well, Tim Blair picks on another part of the screech: Most of all, let me thank you from all over America, coming here to change this country. We haven't seen this in 30 years.

Tim Blair asks: What’s he talking about? Watergate? The thrilling era of change that ushered Gerald Ford into the White House? The age of optimism inspired by the oil crisis? Neil Sedaka’s pact with Satan? What event from 1974 is Shouty Dean referencing here?

Site of the Day

One of my favorite writers, Mark Goldblatt, has launched a website. I hope he will put his excellent pieces on it, in particular my favorite one about ignorance.

Iowa

I'm half surprised that Howard Dean did so poorly in Iowa.

On one hand, I live my life by the superstitious belief that you don't count your chickens before they hatch. In other words, you don't wish someone a happy birthday before it actually is their birthday, for fear of inviting a piano to fall on their head. You don't remark 'wow, no traffic!' on a clear road because this insures you will be standing still within moments. You don't make even the smallest of assumptions because by the very nature of your assuming you are potentially changing the outcome. The other day I was driving back to NY from DC and I called Peter. He said 'yay! I'm going to see you tonight.' Picturing a 12 car pile-up and my mangled body twisted within, I said 'maybe you're going to see me tonight.' 'That's right', he said 'maybe I'm going to see you tonight.' Howard Dean was the assumed winner for a long time now. I had Dawn Summers and The Note both saying that anything could happen. And, I believed them. So, last night wasn't a total surprise.

But. On the other hand, I'm in a Master's program for Political Campaign Management and we live and breathe by polling. Before the program, I would dismiss polls. Now, I have to take them, to some extent, seriously. We make up commercials based on them, we figure out which people to target for direct mail because of them, we develop a message according to them. I can't say 'if Howard Dean taught us anything, it is that polls are entirely meaningless' because the response may well be 'maybe Edwards and Kerry learned how to use polls more efficiently, maybe their polling led to their surge.'

Maybe. I don't know. It's going to be a much more interesting race than any of the talking heads on TV led us to anticipate. Let the games begin.

Sad Day

My grandmother, with whom I was really close, died yesterday. I know this doesn't feel like appropriate blogging material but it's easier for me to just say it here than have to tell so many friends and acquaintances individually. She was amazing (I've written about her before here) and I miss her already. I'm doing ok, if only because it wasn't totally unexpected. She had been in the hospital for 3 months and wasn't doing well. She lived a really full life and I know she had no regrets. I also know that most people don't get to know their grandmothers like I did, and for that I am very thankful.

Well? What's so awful about that? (By Guest Blogger Candace)

First, an excuse for posting at midnight on the eve of a holiday: I am rather proud of myself and the 350 pages of tough reading I have put behind me today. However, a mere 24, which took me nearly 2 hours to get through, require commentary, particularly because of how its thesis is applied in regular political discourse.

I'm talking about an article by Deon Baker, "The Taming of the Idea of 'Civil Society,'" published in the journal Democratization, which laments the decline of a radical, anti-state vision of civil society. This vision, he argues, has fallen by the wayside in favor of liberal-democratic ideas of a state-supportive civil society or a structural construct that wishes to see civil society's political function absorbed into the predictable, regulatable institutions of political society.

Not far from this, we arrive (literally) at the oft-quoted, nationally-bestselling volume, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, by Robert Putnam. I'm not claiming expertise on this volume - I've only read the introduction and had the summary offered to me by a half-dozen of my professors - but I am disturbed by the fundamental assumption on the part of both theorists (and many communitarians generally), lamenting the so-called "decline" of civil society (in alarmist fashion nonetheless), that it is absolutely essential for democracy. It's not an uncommon theme in democratic theory, but the trouble is that the unpopular question is not always asked: What is so awful about the decline of an anti-state "civil society?" What, exactly, is so bad about "bowling alone"?

There are two fundamental problems with those who loudly lament "the decline of civil society in the United States," with theorists such as G. Bingham Powell who use voter turnout as a key measure of "democracy," and with others who hold up the supposedly more civil nations of Europe as some kind of shining contrast to the dark and anti-democratic tendencies of voters in the United States. Few call out the problem as one of not enough radicalism, many express traditionalist fears that we're losing our sense of community, and there is a general idea that the loss of a vibrant civil society is a tragic one, that will undermine the kind of democracy that we supposedly had, and that de Tocqueville so praised, and that is presumably more representative.

To all of which I say, why the alarm?

I have two explanations which at the time of this writing seem both accurate and positive; certainly nothing to be seriously alarmed about. [Sidenote: I am determined to use the word "alarmed" as much as possible while writing on this site. Tres irresistable.] But to spare Kashei's devoted regular readership and those entirely unconcerned with popular alarm in the United States, I'll continue them on the next page.

First, the usurping of civil society by political society is nothing to lament, so long as the possibility of an anti-state civil society remains open. And I think our founders would agree. If citizens feel that their political interests are well enough representated by established political institutions, does this not signal a positive development for democracy? If we are satisfied with our level of representation, does that not mean that we have reached a happy equilibrium, which our radical fringes ought not to demand that we leave?

Second of all, isn't the best government, the best state-society relationship, one that is flexible? That we can trust our government with more decision-making and are less inclined to participate directly, or turn out to the polls, doesn't necessarily mean that we're stupid. It means that government is doing what we've asked it to do, and we don't need any more. The foundational concept of the United States government is minimalist: what the people do not ask of their government, what is not "necessary and proper," it is not obligated to provide. If we do not demand more of it, it does not mean it is not functioning, but the precise opposite: it is doing exactly what we have asked it to do.

It seems to me that in a healthy government, this pendulum will swing - though not far to each side - from popular restraint of the government to popular complacency. From the very title of Putnam's book, it is evident that he recognizes this swing: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (emphasis mine). It makes sense in an extraordinarily simple, even biological way: as, when hungry, we eat -- but we are not then compelled to keep eating just in case we might get hungry again later. If we do, that's an eating disorder: a malfunctioning of our better sense. Why do we treat our involvement in government differently?

So long as the state, in the periods in which it holds greater power and civil society sees less reason to oppose it, does not eradicate the institutions and structures that permit the people to organize against it, I see no threat to democracy. Only the most radical conceptions of democracy rely on constant feeding by the populace. In other words, only the most exhausting. If Americans are content to bowl alone (or with their friends, in non-institutional behavior, an element not captured by the mere not-joining-of-leagues), let them do so. Not everything has to be organized by the radicals to be genuine. And when the American people decide they want leagues again, they'll get leagues -- such is the nature of the free market and free association, which, like the freedom to worship, also entails the freedom not to associate if that's more desirable.

And I contest that it's a sign of a healthy government, not a sick one, when its citizens are not compelled to organize against it, or to watch its every move, every bit as much as it's a sign of a healthy government that the people retain the right to organize and even to oppose should such action be necessary in the future.

After all, it's authoritarianism, not democracy, in which all these things are supposed to remain constant. And I am certain that my professedly populist friends who are so eager to cry about the (probably largely fictional) "decline of civil society" will also resist the label of "authoritarian" with equal fervor.

Now, do me a favor and challenge me, if you will. It's why I write.

Black people don't like being social experiments? Who knew?

AJC reports: "In the midst of the civil rights movement of the '60s, Dean--son of a Wall Street securities broker with a home on Park Avenue--saw an opportunity to broaden his horizons and requested a black roommate. . . . [Don] Roman learned only recently of Dean's request for a black roommate. Knowing that during their freshman year 'would have been the kiss of death,' said Roman, not wanting to be 'some white liberal's' social experiment."

Via BOTW.

Well, there's one more reason I won't be

Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair who singlehandedly made me cancel my subscription, is voting for Mike Bloomberg in '05.

My all time favorite politician

Rudy Giuliani is on Wolf Blitzer and I can't describe the warm feelings I get when I see him. Rudy is my inspiration in politics. He represents the first time in my life that I saw a politician make a real change. I went away to Boston for college in 1994 and returned to a different city 5 years later. It was his no-nonsense way that made this change. His predecessors wrung their hands and said NY couldn't be changed, that we were destined to live in a scary cesspool of crime and danger. Giuliani showed that one man can make a big difference. He remains my favorite for moments like when he laughs off polls that Blitzer shows him that has him beating Hillary in a possible '06 matchup, saying 'the polls from last week in Iowa are completely useless, this is even more so'. If he was pro-life, I'd make sweeping pronouncements that he will be President or VP one day. Too bad.

Not for the faint of heart

Oschisms has a video of a US Apache helicopter shooting on (I believe) Iraqi insurgents. Very graphic.

New blog!

Sometimes 'Spot On' commenter Michaeld has started a blog. It's called Blog Philosophy. Go pay him a visit.

I am so chill

What Classic Movie Are You?

Palestinians v. Israel=Europe v. America?

European Union Parliament member Ilka Schroeder has called the Palestinian Intifada a 'proxy war' between Europe and America. "The Europeans," explained MP Schroeder, "supported the Palestinian Authority with the aim of becoming its main sponsor, and through this, challenge the U.S. and present themselves as the future global power. Therefore, the Al-Aksa Intifada should be understood as a proxy war between Europe and the United States."

Interesting. I have to say that I admire her candor. Is she correct? Is that what this is ultimately about? Is that why Europe seems to want the Palestinians to 'win'? Has hatred of America come down to this?

I was reminded of a Victor Davis Hanson piece from July of 2002. It was called 'European Paradoxes' and a line from it stayed with me all this time: 'The Middle East? Shame on you, not us, for financing the terrorists on the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority and Israel? You helped to fund a terrorist clique; we, a democracy — go figure.'

Via The Common Virtue.

Losing it

'The Israeli ambassador to Sweden completely lost it at the opening of a new exhibition at Stockholm’s Museum of National Antiquities, and smashed an exhibit glorifying the Islamic Jihad mass murderer who blew up the Maxim restaurant' reports LGF.

Sigh. What to say about this? On one hand, I am a big fan of revenge and good vengeance dictates that you keep control and that you wait for an opportunity rather than lashing out. In other words, I believe silence can be much deadlier than words, and I believe not showing your emotions can be so much scarier to the person you wish to harm than screaming in their face. I'm sure the Ambassador would've had the opportunity, someday, to affect the happiness and well-being of the artist. Life just seems to work that way. On the other, I wonder how much this Ambassador has had to deal with, how many times he had to smile at someone he wanted to spit at, how often he got the 'I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm just anti-Zionist' bullshit from his host country, how frequently he's had to deal with these idiot hipsters who believe that hating Israel, glorifying the killing of Jews, is the coolest, most 'intellectual' position. And then he's in the national museum and is confronted with an image of a smiling female suicide bomber, called 'Snow White' by the piece's title, made by an Israeli Swede. Was he supposed to smile? Was he supposed to pretend nothing was wrong? I think that if I had to deal with what he's probably had to, I would lose it just the same. Was the artist present? Good shot he would've had my boot marks on his calves. Sometimes vengeance will just have to be immediate.

Hysterical much?

John Kerry just called newly installed Judge Pickering 'a known forceful advocate for cross burning in America' on a clip shown on FOX. Will the media call him on this character stomping? Wait for it.

Another 'niggardly' case?

Have you been watching Donald Trump's reality show 'The Apprentice'? Basically, there are two gender specific groups that take on tasks assigned by the Donald. The losing group loses a member. It's been two weeks and the men have lost both times. One of the women is this really uptight, bizarre, black woman. She is constantly tussling with one or another of the women. Yesterday, in the third or fourth fight of the episode, she called one of the women 'emotionally immature' (or something like that). The woman responded 'that's the pot calling the kettle black'. The black woman then said 'there you go with your racist attitude again. You just can't handle a strong black woman.'

At this point, I called my very own strong black woman Dawn Summers, who I knew was watching the show. She answered the phone saying 'shut up, shut up, shut up' and then hung up on me.

Now, Dawn is extremely sensitive to political correctness and racism. I thought that when she was, clearly, embarrased and amused by her fellow black woman making such a huge mistake on national tv, that others would get it too. Not so, the guy that got kicked off yesterday was on FOX today and among his comments was that 'the guys are really close, we didn't have racial problems like the girls.' That's just ridiculous. The black girl is off balance. She isn't insane because she is black, she would be just as insane if she was white. Moreover, the comment had nothing to do with the girl's color at all. Which means, of course, that Sharpton and Jackson will be protesting outside Trump Tower by next week.

Weirdo

If there is one person, in this whole wide world, that needs no extra weirdness in his life, it is Michael Jackson. What are his agents/PR people/family thinking in getting the Nation of Islam involved in his life? Like, it's not enough that he's become white, dramatically altered his face to where it's hard to look at him, dangled his baby over a balcony, dresses his children in masks when in public, and most of all, is accused for the second time of molesting a child. No, what he needs is a controversial racist group running his 'security'.

On Friendship

I went to a great talk the other night by Joseph Epstein on the 'Limits of Friendship'. NY based 'Spot On' commenter Michaeld told me about it and drove down just for the event. I came late but enjoyed what I heard. Rachel of Banana Republican and Blogs for Bush was there and covers it nicely. Epstein's piece is a great read and it was kind of nice to attend an event that had nothing to do with politics.

A must read

I've long ago ran out of creative ways to say that Mark Steyn is the man. Steyn on the Dems:

But what both Clark and Kerry are trying to do is tap into the most successful aspect of Dean’s campaign: its tonal quality. Either because he’s a doctor or the son of Park Avenue toffs, Dean was always arrogant as governor of Vermont. But he was never quite so steamed as he is these days. Whether consciously or not, he seemed to figure out that the shrewdest way to tap into the Democrats’ anti-Bush anger was by using anti-war anger as a cover. Let me expand on that: whether or not most Dems are genuinely anti-war is neither here nor there. What matters is that they’re genuinely anti-Bush, and an anti-war position is the least insane garb to dress it up in. It would be hard to do all that ‘Bush is Hitler!!!!’ stuff over his ‘No Child Left Behind’ Education Act or his prescription-drug plan for seniors: the Dems would come over as even loopier than they already do. Thus, an anti-war anger is necessary to license their anti-Bush anger. Dean understood that.

The trouble is the unDeans don’t. Dick Gephardt has been consistently pro-war. John Kerry has been consistently inconsistent in whether he’s pro-war or anti-war according to which way the wind’s blowing: if you point this out to him, he says something like, ‘I saw combat up close and I don’t mince words when it comes to having the courage not to have any courage’ (I quote from memory). General Clark’s general position is that, as a general, he’s above most positions. Ask him whether he’s pro-war or anti-war and he replies, as he did to the New York Times, ‘I think that’s too simple a question.’ But, if you can find a way to rephrase the question more complicatedly, broadly speaking he used to be pro-war but he’c getting more and more dementedly anti-war with each new setback (Saddam’s capture, the decline in insurgent activity, etc.). Or, as he puts it, ‘I’ve said it both ways because, when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position.’ Exactly.

'Outside the debate'

I went to a terrific debate last night at America's Future Foundation rating Bush's presidency thus far. Basically, it was two libertarians, a conservative and a Republican party guy. They were Gene Healy, James P. Pinkerton, Ramesh Ponnuru and Jim Dyke, respectively.

If the purpose of a debate is to leave with your thinking somewhat changed, then the conclusion I came to last night is that I don't need any liberals in a debate. They just have nothing to add these days. I haven't come away from any conversations with liberals, in particular about Iraq, feeling like I've had my position challenged or that I had been given food for thought. 'Bush is an idiot', 'Bush is evil', 'it's all about oil' or 'he's just doing this to please his daddy' aren't arguments. Neither is 'we should spent that money here'. How much money would we have been willing to spend to prevent 9/11? Their hatred of Bush, and of Republicans in general, makes them so unserious to me.

Libertarians are, I must admit, a different story entirely. The libertarians present really tore into Bush. However, if there is one thing that I appreciate about libertarianism, it's the consistency. If you believe that we should never go to war unless, and only unless, there is a gun pointed directly at us, then it's consistent (though, in my opinion, wrong) to have been against the war in Iraq. Liberals don't really believe this, do they? They were for the 'unilateral' war in Kosovo. They are for the US undertaking military humantarian actions, so long as the man in the White House has a (D) next to his name. Libertarians also challenge me on domestic policy. Bush spends too much. This is a fact. Libertarians and conservatives rightly criticize him for it. But liberals, really, what can they say? Any of the 8 remaining candidates would make a Bush budget look like my shoe budget. There just doesn't seem to be much that I can learn from the left. Libertarians ask tough questions that give me pause. After Ramesh had defended Bush in light of Republican party history (which he noted was only briefly truly for small government, under Gingrich), a libertarian blogger I've been reading since before I knew what blogs were, Julian Sanchez, was in the audience and he asked him 'Ramesh, I was wondering if you'd be willing to keep your pundit beer-goggles on for long enough to deliver a stirring encomium to Bill Clinton. Because it seems as though if your criteria for evaluating presidents involves controlling for historical party awfulness and poll numbers, you'd have to assess him at least as favorably as Bush. And if so, will you be doing a Crossfire opposite Rich Lowry on this sometime?' That's a great question. It's related to what Ramesh talked about and it's funny. Ramesh, in turn, provided a great answer, that he did not think that Clinton was a total disaster as president and that he considers him somewhere in the middle in his personal rating of presidents. Julian's question wasn't 'but really, don't you think Bush is just doing this to help his buddies at Halliburton' and it didn't have anything to do with an Afghanistan oil pipeline. In other words, it was rational and I really appreciate that.

Libertarians are proof, to me for me, that I don't have to agree with someone to respect their opinion. I'm glad they are there and that they provide a real challenge to conservatives. We're better for it.

(By the way, the 'outside the debate' title is what Doug says about his own Democrats these days)

Music

I used to think that I was obsessed with music. I have about a thousand cds, love hearing new music, and used to go see live shows fairly frequently (less so in the last year or so, though). Then I met Peter.

My obsession was nothing compared to his obsession. My thousand cds? Paltry next to his two thousand. My interest in new music? I'm like 3 years behind, comparatively. Live shows? The boy travels alone to NJ or deep into Brooklyn to catch a band he likes. I generally don't leave the island of Manhattan unless there is a really special reason (Clinic in Hoboken or Radiohead at Liberty State Park are the only exceptions I can think of).

We met at a britpop/indie club. He was in a band and though he didn't despise new Radiohead like I did, I was happy to meet someone who shared my interest in music. Very quickly, though, it got to be too much. Music would be on 100% of the time if it was up to him. Spending money on travel? That interferes with cd buying, unless of course the trip can be viewed as a music buying extravaganza like our trip to Britain a few years ago. I got tired of what I call the 'incessant' music playing. He joked that he was deceived into dating me, thinking I liked music as much as he did.

Sometimes, though, I'm right back to being gaga over my music loving boyfriend. I love his post today on his music site about the Field Mice. I have, of course, never heard them but his passionate and excellent writing about them makes me want to hurry home and have him play them for me. I could picture him in the store, clutching the cd and eagerly running toward his stereo. It made me miss him after being away from him in DC for these past two weeks. Go read it but don't go falling in love with him too. He's mine.

Why is my state so stupid?

Some New York counties are granting permission to bars, that were adversely effected financially by the no-smoking ban, to set up smoking areas. This is a perfect example of why small government is something to strive for, despite how difficult it can be. How will the government decide who gets the exemption? How will the bars prove that their sales have gone down because of the ban? Won't the bars not granted exemptions sue and have strong cases? Wasn't the purpose of the ban that smoking is supposedly deadly to bartenders and waitresses? How does a dip in sales excuse this?

Via Jacob Sullum at Reason. I still have Sullum's book on my Amazon Wish List, ahem, ahem. :-)

Carol Moseley Braun drops out

I win! I win! I win!

Dawn Summers is taking me to Roy's!

The RNC has a blog

Ed Gillespie, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, has started a blog. Go visit to find out what my party of choice is doing.

Bitter Cold Weather Pours Into Northeast

Could you pick a worse time for a speech on Global Warming? Not if you're Al Gore, you can't. He will be speaking tomorrow in NY just as record breaking cold weather moves into the region.

Via Free Republic.

Obviously innocent.

Is this the face of a guilty man?

It's called experience.

Instapundit has a story about an American Muslim travelling to Egypt 'convinced that, unlike America, there was no corruption and hypocrisy in the Arab Muslim world and that it bore no responsibility for its own appalling condition' only to flee 'home the next week, leaving all my illusions of the Arab world in my Cairo flat. I couldn’t wait to be in America again.'

I wish all Americans, Muslim or not, who believe the worst about this country and have never experienced the rest of the world, could do something like this. The loudest wake up call to how amazing America is and how lucky we are to live here is to go live elsewhere, in particular somewhere like Egypt (or almost anywhere in the Middle East save Israel).

The role of a politician's wife

After the NY Times came out with its piece about Howard Dean's absent wife, my first reaction was quite feminist: why should she be paraded around with her husband? She's got her own life and that is a good thing.

But, it's not realistic. The truth is, the potential president's wife has his attention, and his trust, in a way that no one else does. It is important for the public to know her, as important, if not more so, than knowing with which advisors the president will choose to surround himself.

Agree/Disagree? What is the role of wife on the campaign trail, and further, what is the role of wife in the White House?

Quote of the Day

How are we supposed to find hidden and buried WMDs in Iraq if, wherever one digs there, we just keep finding mass graves?

-Nelson Ascher at Europundits

Via Tim Blair.

Why I'm ok with DC not being a state

Dean, Sharpton Lead in DC Primary

Mean Dean

Doug (quoting a Rolling Stone article with Howard Dean): "Unlike most politicians, who work hard to seem like your best friend, Dean, a physician by training, projects a refreshing quality of seeming not to really care if you like him. In conversation, his whole body is clenched, his manner making it clear that getting his views across is work, that he's doing a job, not trying to reach out or seduce. When you ask him a question, he doesn't so much answer it as snap it in two, relaxing a little only when he's sure that he has broken its back."
Doug: People love all of those qualities in a President
Doug: Remember Nixon
Doug: People loved that demeanor
Doug: Loved it
Kashei: ha
Kashei: I'm blogging this

UPDATE: I forgot to link to the funniest thing I read yesterday, Clarified on Howard Dean's new vow to fight back against his opponents and not be a 'pin cushion'.

ACLU stands up for Rush Limbaugh (By Guest Blogger Candace)

Just thought it was Alarming News. (Not that Instapundit didn't probably post about it when it happened yesterday, but who reads him these days anyhow?)

[Their argument is actually really interesting and worth reading, by the way, and that link goes right to it, on the ACLU website.]

Kashei is absentminded

I already gave them a welcome, but I somehow forgot to add Candace and Ginger's new blog Candied Ginger to the blogroll. It's odd. I could've swore I added it. Anyway, go visit the ladies (and their guest blogger Ken Wheaton).

Meeting Bloggers in 'real life'

If you're ever in DC and find yourself invited to lunch with Joe Grossberg, take my advice and go, because if you're lucky he'll take you to an excellent chili place and not let you pay. Thanks, Joe.

Step away from the crackpipe, Dennis

Kucinich: Pay reparations to Iraqi families

Via The Note.

Primary Season semi-officially opens

Did you know that Washington DC is having the first presidential primary in the nation today? Yeah, neither do most people. Despite being in DC, the first I heard of it on local tv was this morning. If I wasn't reading the Note daily, I wouldn't have known about it. Only 4 of the candidates, Sharpton, Kucinich, Moseley-Braun and Dean are participating (the rest don't want to offend New Hampshire) so it won't be much of a contest but it will be interesting to see who wins in the District. This is, after all, that re-elected Marion Berry after he was caught, on camera, smoking crack with hookers. Even still, I doubt there will be a Kucinich landslide like Dawn is hoping for.

Update: The Washington Post on the primary 'No delegates will be selected, there will be no direct effect on anything in the real world, and to the extent that the vote will 'send a message,' it is overwhelmingly likely that no one will be listening very hard, since the ballot for this Democratic primary is conspicuously lacking the names of most of the major Democratic presidential candidates.'

What? The BBC? Intolerant? (By Guest Blogger Candace)

I have to apologize if this has been written about before and recently and I've simply missed it, but I've got this beautiful thing called CNNfn/CNN International and, in addition to getting the weather in all the world's big cities at regular intervals, I get to hear about interesting stories like this one, which is still heating up with our friends across the ocean.

After all, who wouldn't get more curious after reading this little shocker?
Police are investigating Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments after a complaint by the CRE.

Police? Investigating... someone's right to make an argument in print?

An explanation. Robert Kilroy-Silk has, until recently, hosted a popularly-regarded-as-impartial discussion show on the BBC. Until, due to controversy that an article he had written outside of his role as host last April in a national newspaper. In the article, he was very critical of Arab regimes. The specifically offensive statement was one in which he was apparently "calling Arabs 'suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors'", though I haven't been able to get to the actual article and place the quote in context. I have, however, heard his regrets, in which he gives a detailed explanation of the Arab regimes he's referring to, saying, "I clearly do not believe all Arabs are suicide bombers... that would be stupid."

While no one besides Kilroy-Silk is apologizing for his remarks, others are busy defending his right to free speech. Meanwhile, the BBC, which took its sweet time in dealing with this issue, is at the center of the controversy. Has it anything to do with the forthcoming report from the Hutton inquiry? Is the BBC itself merely bending to a lobby power? Which "image" is worse for it -- a loose, personnel-based association with a position that is offensive to the left, or an alliance with the idea that only "approved" opinions are acceptable for its employees and others to hold?

Kilroy is overwhelmingly popular and known for his impartiality on the show, which, according to everything I've seen, did not suffer from the incident. And now, "The majority of those calling newspapers and BBC outlets say he should be allowed to continue as a presenter, even if they disapprove of what he said".

I'll be very interested to see how this all turns out, and if the BBC ends up siding with the American view that diversity of opinion is acceptable, or sides with the "don't boo our anthem or we'll imprison you" Frenchies. A moment of truth, all around.

More on group voting

James Taranto on the 'Black and Brown' debate in Iowa yesterday:

The MSNBC voiceover introducing the debate captured its patronizing premise, promising that the candidates would "focus on the issues that matter most to America's minorities: the economy, health care, immigration"--as if these issues don't matter to America's majority, and America's minorities don't care about national security.

Ignore. Deny.

My good friend, and tireless activist for Iranian freedom, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi has a devastating piece on NRO about the UN's refusal to help the Iranian people. She's got some words for the EU too.

More on immigration

When Oschisms wasn't pissed off, Jonah Goldberg wasn't 'outraged' and James Lileks had some strong arguments in favor of it, I began to think that maybe my initial concern about Bush's immigration proposal was overwrought. But watching and reading the reaction of Mexican president Vincente Fox, I have to say that my first feeling about the proposal was the correct one: this is disastrous policy.

In addition to his crackpot declaration that he doesn't want amnesty, he wants open borders, Fox has been on tv telling me how much Mexicans love Mexico ('they love tacos' he said) and how they wouldn't be coming to the US if it wasn't for the jobs. Doesn't he realize this is an argument for closed borders and cracking down on illegal immigration? Why would we want people coming here who have no interest in becoming Americans and are strictly here to reap material benefits and go home? I have heard the argument, from the Right actually, that the problem with immigration today is that the immigrants of the past would return to their home countries but that the immigrants today stay in America forever. I disagree. The problem is the exact opposite. It is multiculturalism and the idea that you should hold onto the first bit of self identification before the hyphen (Russian-American, Irish-American, Martian-American). It is the lack of immersion in American culture and the idea that while I'm here, working, living, my home is elsewhere.

Americans are too nice. Fox's far out comments demonstrate that. I wish Bush could be the heartless man his opponents portray him as and tell him where he can take his 'open borders' proposal.

Update: Mark Steyn, as always, is hilariously on point:

According to a RoperASW poll from last year, 83 percent of Americans support mandatory detention and forfeiture of property for illegal immigrants, followed by deportation.
Eighty-three percent. Pretty big number. So who are the 17 percent who don't think illegal immigrants should be seized, jailed, have their property confiscated and deported?
Well, they're pretty much everyone in the two major parties, plus the entire U.S. media.

Steyn piece via Hammer and Nails.

Well, there goes the whole 'Bush went to Iraq for the Jewish vote' idea

Jews overwhelmingly oppose Bush.

Via Free Republic.

New Blog

The wonderful site GOP Brooklyn now has a spin off blog. The first post questions Gifford Miller's, speaker of the New York City Council, numbers. If you need to fudge the number of hits your site gets, it's not a good sign, Giff.

UPDATE: Giff removes counter!!! Right Side ot NY gets results!

Eminem is a Republican, Exhibit B

Themes are
A. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

B. Personal Responsibility

From 'Sing for the moment':
'They say music can alter moods and talk to you
Well can it load a gun up for you , and cock it too
Well if it can, then the next time you assault a dude
Just tell the judge it was my fault and i'll get sued'

See Exhibit A here. Seeing as I'm too lazy to sit down, listen to all of Eminem's music and write a piece about it, I will be adding to this series periodically.

Comment Section

I had to delete a comment today. I hate to do it but it was entirely inappropriate and well, a little weird. If someone has something personal to say to me, my email address is slayerofmisconceptions at yahoo.com. If you identify yourself in your email and I don't mistakenly think it's spam, I will definitely respond.

Update: Wow. Well, judging by the 14 emails on the subject (and one phone message), I think I did the wrong thing in deleting the comment. Some of you had seen it and were worried and others were curious what it was. For those that were wondering, it was a cryptic comment by someone who definitely knows me and had seen me recently without letting me know they had seen me. The person made reference to the watch I've been wearing for the past 2 months but also to the watch I wore in high school (yes, bizarre, I know). They commented on an extensive interest I had in Nigeria a few years back. They called me beautiful (can't call them crazy if they're so right :-) ) and overly confident (hey, what's 'overly' exactly). They also noted that had I responded to their email, they wouldn't have to post a comment here. I think I accidentally deleted their email thinking it was spam. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I know who it is and it is most likely a joke so please don't worry about me. It's nice to know y'all care though. :-)

Dean v. Marx

While I made fun of the first post on the site that I had read, the one about people being 'Republican but not conservative', Popshot is quickly becoming one of my favorite blogs. The writing is really fresh and for the most part, I like their politics and music. An example is this piece comparing Dean to Marx:

Here's a clip:

Howard Dean, like Marx, is a dyed-in-the-wool collectivist. While Marx focused on economic classes (and Dean certainly doesn't ignore them), Dean makes sure to use every other grouping classification he can – “LGBTs,” “workers,” seniors, women, Americans with disabilities, Pacific Islanders, et cetera. For God’s sake, on his website, you can even “Suggest a Group.” Dean’s site is a tapestry of multi-culturalism weaved through HTML.

The two are unconcerned with individualism. In Marx’s reading of history, society was the thing and the individual was just a cog in the machine. For Dean, individuals matter insofar as they belong to a class. He has women’s issues, children’s issues, minorities’ issues, workers’ issues, LBGT’s issues. He doesn’t simply have issues. Perhaps such a criticism is nitpicky in this day of advanced political correctness, but were I running for President, I would have position papers on those issues that mattered to every citizen – economy, security, taxes, defense. Such positions shouldn’t have to be gerrymandered to dozens of groups of people. Practically the only places where one finds the word “individual” in position papers of Dean’s are in references to membership in a group: “individual farmers,” “individual workers.”

I read a question somewhere recently asking what are the important issues to women. My most important issue is terrorism. My second most important issue is crime. These don't seem like what is frequently referred to as womens' issues (which, as I covered last month basically means issues related exclusively to sex and babies) and I find that so offensive. Am I not smart enough to know that staying alive is the most important thing and being safe from harm is second? I hate group voting, I find it so sheeplike. But maybe it's because of who my groups (women, Jews, New Yorkers) vote for.

Howard Dean knows G-d

Christopher Buckley has the proof.

BBC reporting chemical weapons found in Iraq

Drudge links to the breaking story.

The immigration issue

Victor Davis Hanson has some great comments on what he thinks should happen regarding illegal immigration. I haven't read his book, Mexifornia, and I guess I had just assumed that he held a certain position (namely that amnesty is 100% wrong and that deportation is necessary), but the ideas he proposes in this interview are far more moderate. I'm not sure I agree with him, but when Hanson writes something, I have to admit it gives me more to think about than with other writers. I'm looking forward to him writing a piece on Bush's proposal.

Via Free Republic.

Selective application of rights (By Guest Blogger Candace)

The last few months have convinced me that one of the key distinctions between today's "conservatives" and "liberals" has to do with religion. Of course, this is only under one definition of "conservative" and "liberal," but it's the one issue that keeps me squarely in the Republican camp. Not because I want to "push my religion" on anyone else -- but because I don't want the religion of secularism pushed on me.

One of the key points consistently separating me from my Democrat friends is the idea of "separation of church and state." Even if we accept that said separation is essential to this country, that separation can take many forms. One form is that of state non-intervention in direct matters of religion. Another is eradication of religion from our society and from social decisions. I firmly believe the latter is antithetical to the freedom of religion we are supposed to be protecting. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion; the state has no right to tell us what to believe, so it can't tell us not to believe. It can't tell us not to make religion part of our lives, part of our interactions in the public sphere, and part of the way that we see politics. After all, in the political sense, religious world views are just that - world views - and deserve the same playing field as non-religious ones. Everyone bases their ideas on something, and I will not be told that religion is the one invalid field from which to draw my ideas.

As it happens, I'm reading an extraordinarily interesting book right now that confirms what I've always thought about the origins of our country, and then takes it a step further. The text is Akhil Reed Amar's The Bill of Rights, and it's a detailed textual and historical study of the Bill of Rights in context. I'm not that far into it, but this morning what I read really struck me: most states at the origin of this nation had state religions, but they varied. In a sense, people were to "vote with their feet" to live in a state where the religious community fit them. Establishing a national religion would have been impossible, so that's not necessarily what was at stake, but federal rules based on religion would have favored some states over others -- and the states'-rights advocates were staunchly against this. However, 11 of the 13 original had religious requirements for office-holding at the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Only later, after the passage of the 14th Amendment and the application of other "rights" at the state level, did state and local governments lose their right to establish religion. We constantly hear Jefferson's name repeated as the man whose skepticism "proves" that our government never meant to give religion a place in public life. Yet Jefferson himself was not opposed to individual states' establishment of religion.

Why, then, is our discourse today so violently anti-religious? We hear the "Bible Belt" spoken of with complete disdain, as if people living in the South are somehow violating our freedoms by choosing in large numbers to believe in a specific religion. This is not only a dangerous road, but a fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom is.

If we genuinely believe that in the exercise of religious freedom, others are violating some set of abstract social rights we want to have (or social goals we want to achieve), we're living under the wrong constitution and in the wrong country with the wrong history. This country has never depended on the suppression of faith for its strength. Rather, it is the freedom to practice it in communities that was vigorously defended in state constitutional conventions and is vigorously defended today. We do live in a different USA now, with more states and more diversity within single areas. But if we are going to really do a good job "celebrating diversity" then we need to tolerate even the most fundamental of differences and respect one another's right to believe and to make our beliefs manifest. Just as the anti-religious left has the right to pursue its social goals, so does the "Religious Right" have the right to try to make society a place where they can pursue happiness, too.

If the left really can't stand religion or religious paradigms in the public sphere, all the rhetoric about tolerance and diversity crumbles beneath them, revealing an anti-religious agenda that is just not just rooted in black and white concepts of what is right and wrong, but in who gets to participate in public life. And that, my friends, is discrimination at its ugliest.

Scam Artist Sharpton is now Scam Artist Candidate Sharpton

The man who owns no suits but has 'access to suits' is, shockingly, having problems with the financial disclosure part of his campaign. The NY Times has a great piece that reads like a laundry list of campaign finance offenses and noting how many legally questionable financial problems Sharpton's National Action Network has had. About the finances of that organization, Sharpton says 'clearly when you are dealing with corporations, dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, you can have mistakes.' If dealing with 'hundreds of thousands of dollars a year' is a problem, imagine running the budget of this country. Read all about Sharpton's stays (on the campaign's dime) in fancy hotels and how limousines are the ride of choice for the racist demagogue. The Democrats do themselves, the political process, and the country a disservice by taking the candidacy of this man at all seriously. At this point, if he's considered a serious candidate, why isn't Lyndon Larouche?

Another Republican Event

If you live in Brooklyn and would like to attend a cool, free event planning for Bush2004, drop me an email (slayerofmisconceptions at yahoo.com) and I'll send you the information.

Addition to the army, er, blogroll

Sometimes commenter, and good friend, Bill has started a blog called Hammer and Nails.

I love DC

I went to hear Richard Perle and David Frum speak today at AEI promoting their new book 'An End to Evil: How to Win The War On Terror'. They were amazing, of course. The audience was pretty impressive too. John O'Sullivan from National Review was there as was one of my all-time favorites, Michael Ledeen. Perle and Frum signed their book for me afterward and I asked Perle what he thought the term 'neo-con' meant these days. He said that someone had told him recently that 'con' meant 'conservative' and 'neo' meant 'Jewish'. Sigh.

Universities make me sad. (By Guest Blogger Candace)

So I take a lot of flak around here. Not even for being conservative, mind you, but for daring - daring! - to have my own, non-Ph.D.-informed opinion. And I am even more tired of the suspicious skepticism I get from people when I say that the U and its courses tend to be overwhelmingly biased, almost to the point where conservatives have no breathing room.

"Suuure you're complaining," they say. "You're a conservative, you wouldn't be happy unless they made you read Milton Friedman as a graduation requirement."

Well, I've stumbled across the last page of a syllabus here, and I'm going to excerpt it as my little silent way of partially proving my very good case. It's positively outrageous that nobody thinks this stuff is... postively outrageous.

Week 7: Jenkins, Mark. All Powers Necessary and Convenient.
Week 8: Bush, George. (4 Addresses to the Nation). Fineman, Howard. "Bush and God." Coe, Kevin et al. "No Shades of Gray: The Binary Discourse of George W. Bush and an Echoing Press." Pooley, Eric. "Mayor of the World."
Week 9: Graham, Erica et al. "Follow the Leader: The Bush Administration, News Media, and Passage of the USA Patriot Act." Ashcroft, Gen. John. "Anti-Terrorism POlicy Review." Robbins, Tim. "A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation." Hammad, Suheir. "first writing since" Nye, Naomi. "To Any Would-Be Terrorists."

Squeal with delight, little liberals. But squeal, knowing that this stuff is guilty of binary discourse and echo-chamber technique to a degree that George Bush, for all his necessary and convenient powers, could only imagine -- if he wanted to.

George W. Bush Event in NY

I'm on the host committee for a fundraising event for the president in February in New York. Karl Rove will be speaking. If you are interested in possibly attending, please send me an email and I will give you more information: slayerofmisconceptions at yahoo.com (replace at with a @).

In a British accent mind you.

Madonna just said the words 'I fancied myself an armadillo' and then went into some pretentious monologue that I couldn't quite follow, on Leno. I always appreciated Madonna. If there was one thing I liked about her, it was how real she seemed, always spoke her mind, didn't care what people thought of her. Now she just seems like everyone else, the typical fake celebrity. It's not the Wesley Clark endorsement, or it isn't just that anyway, it's the Kaballah and the writing childrens' books and whiny songs called 'American Life'. She just got corny and it's too bad.

G-d and elections

The Yeti makes some excellent points about the role of G-d in the lives of leaders.

'Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do'

Go look at this must-see pic of Saddam.

Update: Looked at it again just now and it's obviously fake. Sorry, I have a very poor monitor at work.

Imperialism at its best (By Guest Blogger Candace)

So I was all hot to post about the new Bush plan for undocumented workers, but being a student on the West coast gives me some significant time-zone disadvantages. Nonetheless, I'm hoping the discussion under/continuation of Kashei's post below will feed all of our appetites on the issue, and instead I get to talk about one of my favorite subjects: Europe.

There's a fantastic "Special Report [on] European Unity" in last week's Economist (read the article I'll be referring to here). Reading this long discussion of the history of a "united Europe," I couldn't help but comment to myself on the good guy/bad guy double standard when it comes to concepts of what people around academia like to call "neo-imperalism."

There are several problems with the way academics address the United States. Rather than actually look at what is good or bad about its aims or activities abroad, US activities elsewhere are termed "neo-colonial" or "imperialist," as if any expansion of power is universally bad. Yet this standard is never applied to expansion of the EU. Probably, this is primarily because European Union is just that: expansion, geographically, beginning with nations that have a lot in common. It's not a lot different from "Manifest Destiny," in many ways, although the latter is still condemned by historians.

But I want to ask anyone who thinks I'm way out there with this, how is EU expansion really any different from empire? If "neo-colonialism/imperialism" is defined not only as economic expansion, but cultural, moral, or values-based westernization, as is one argument posited by the anti-globalizationists, how does the fact that Europe is spreading democracy and common values (even embodied in a unified constitution) across a single region differentiate it from interregional goals like those of the United States? Why is it "not America's place" to bully Iraq into democracy? Leave aside the methods: even if we were toppling Saddam somehow entirely peacefully (unfeasible, but I'll give it a chance), the Tariq Alis of the world would still cry out that the US didn't understand and couldn't be successful in helping Iraq rebuild. It's an argument much more severe than Huntington's oft-mocked "clash of civilizations": it says that no matter how good its intentions, any US action to help democratize and stabilize the Middle East is and will be evil.

But isn't the EU really just a manifestation of imperialist desires? I had the privilege of speaking with an EU pseudo-ambassador to the US in a couple of years ago, and he admitted, what was not always so readily revealed at the time, that the goal of the Euro was to tie the nations of the EU together on a presumption of equality, but really bringing everyone closer to the center: the strong EU economies. It was just one step, he admitted, toward a very, very united Europe. Of course, I was certainly not the only one not suprised that the EU would attempt a constitution. The thinking has been for some time now that Europe quite frankly wants power. At the moment, it's construed as a power to make the world "multilateral," with two or three hegemons instead of one and China. But I don't know of anyone who really buys that.

Just as economic unity isn't about equality so much as offering the whole of Europe as a major economic power, strenghtening further the economies of France and Germany, and getting some residual theoretical feel-good in the meantime about peripheral nations, political unity isn't about tolerating differences within the EU or sharing world power with the US. Europe doesn't usually like the US, and it would like to usurp it as the most powerful economy and political actor in the world.

Perhaps nothing states the "cultural neo-colonialism" argument for Europe better than this quote from the article:

Hitler, for example, told the Reichstag in 1936, "It is not very intelligent to imagine that in such a cramped house like that of Europe, a community of peoples can maintain different legal systems and different concepts of law for long."

And concepts of law, like so many other institutions that are deeply embedded in society and values, must draw together in Europe. The cultures and ideas of Central and Eastern European countries longing for (and many receiving, in May of this year) EU membership are perhaps ready to submit to real "EU unity," or Western European hegemony of the entire west-of-Russia region. Is this dark imperialism? Is this the end of their cultures and traditions? Should they resist this non-indigent transformation of their nations, even if it leads them toward democracy and economic stability?

I leave the answer to that question up to you. But I urge you to consider that, whatever that answer is, it should be much the same regarding the efforts of the United States to help other nations around the world. This question cannot be answered by "US good/Europe bad." Is imperialism acceptable or not? I'm interested to hear both sides.

And one last urge -- really, the article is a very good read.

9/11-Saddam connection?

Bill Clinton's advisor on Iraq says yes.

Mars

Peter is a huge fan of space exploration so you can imagine how excited he's been about the Mars landing. He has a great post about it tying it to G-d and art.

Update: His Daily Wire site covers the landing as well.

Completely Out of Touch

Maureen Dowd has long been in line for the crown in the kingdom of the insane but for awhile there it seemed like her fellow Op-Ed columnists were going to give her a run for her money. No more. Her column today starts out whining hopelessly about what a lock W. Bush has on re-election and ends with discussing how hip lesbianism has become. How she got her writing job, I will never know. On the W topic, here is a classic Dowd line revealing just how lost she is:

After all, the Democrats seem puny wandering around Iowa. And more Americans are pronouncing themselves pleased with Mr. Bush.

They like him even though Osama and Al Qaeda are still lurking and frothing, even though we couldn't get through the holidays without an orange alert and flights being canceled, and even though Iraq is still a free-fire zone after a war to get rid of weapons that may not have existed.

She just doesn't get it. That Orange Alert and those cancelled flights? They're going to be a part of our lives for a very long time, Mo. After 9/11, when Dowd was falling apart right on the NY Times editorial page, I really thought she understood the threat and, like most normal people, knew that it would be a long, hard road to rid ourselves of it. Not so. Dowd is bored with the whole terrorism thing and is on to bigger and better things like the supposed fad of lesbianism. The thing that brings me hope is that most Americans are not like Dowd or the mildly retarded NY Times Op-Ed page. Most Americans understand that terrorism and its effects will be with us for some time. We tried the 'getting over it' thing in the 90's after the first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the Embassy bombings. We went back to our regular lives every time, confident that it was only a one-time thing, despite the fact that it was happening again and again. We're not going back this time, Maureen. If you're into pretending that everything is ok, that we can just solve terrorism by talking or begging or ignoring then you are in the wrong country. The thinking of your fellow Americans has moved on and it has left you behind.
Doug frequently uses the phrase 'out of touch' to describe today's Democrats. In some ways, it makes me happy. After all, if the Democrats are 'out of touch' then the Republicans are almost by definition 'in touch'. Pieces like this though worry me. A crazy minority is still a dangerous thing for us all. Those that don't realize that things have changed and that our thinking has to change with it worry me greatly. How can they have missed the message?

Quote of the Day:

"Word is that Donald Rumsfeld asked not to be Time's Person of the Year, preferring that the honor go to the American serviceman. Personally, I could never imagine Rumsfeld as Person of the Year — Man of the Year, yes."
-Jay Nordlinger

Read the whole thing for a quote by quote rip of Wes Clark.

The new immigration proposal

I don't want to jump to conclusions, (although if I were to jump I would land on that it seems like a bad, bad, bad idea) before I've read all about it, but I have a question about Bush's proposal that perhaps one of you can answer:
So, illegal immigrants that can prove they have a job get to stay here legally, right? I assume that those here illegally are working jobs that pay them below minimum wage. If they become legal, will they have to be paid minimum wage? And, if so, wouldn't most of them immediately lose their jobs since the benefit to their employer is usually that they can pay them these low wages? And, if that's the case, do they then return to having an illegal status since they no longer can prove they have a job?

Update: You know if the NY Times likes it, it can't be too good.

Update: Oschisms writes that no one should be surprised by this.

The Bush-Hitler Ad

I need a copy of it and it is no longer on the moveon.org or rnc.org websites. Anybody know where I can find it?

A great reason to hate Howard Dean

Arianna Huffington likes him.

Via The Note.

More guns less crime

Mark Steyn received some reader criticism at the Daily Telegraph for having gung-ho mentality and dissing the Swedish nanny state. He responds (and as always with Mr. Steyn, the whole thing is a must read):

Well, it's true I subscribe to a gung-ho mentality, but I don't live in a culture of fear. In fact, British friends visiting me in this corner of northern New England from their crime-ridden leafy shires always remark on my blithe unconcern about "home security". I don't have laser alarms, or window locks, or, indeed, a front-door key. Like most of my neighbours, I leave my home unlocked and, when I park the car, I leave the key in the ignition because then you always know where to find it.

Now I understand Ms Widung prefers her "culture of peace and solidarity". I think this means that, when confronted by a ne'er-do-well, she'd hold hands and sing What the World Needs Now is Love, Sweet Love. I wouldn't personally recommend this, because, if he wasn't in a murderous rage beforehand, he almost certainly will be by about halfway through the middle-eight. But each to her own. Still, Ms Widung must surely be dismayed by the number of her fellow nanny-staters who voted in Today's poll for a "listeners' law" that would permit property owners "to use any means to defend their homes against intruders".

Dean is just like Bush...

....writes Jonah Goldberg. Well, Herbert Walker Bush anyway. He makes some good, funny points in comparing them.

About Dean:

Often, right before he deliberately says something unfair or bizarre, he says "I'm going to have a little fun at" so-and-so's "expense." So-and-so is often President Bush. But, as Will Saletan — who's been doing a great job covering the Democrats — has noted, it's also his Democratic opponents, the DLC, the DNC, and anyone else he'd like to smear.

It's the difference between saying "I love you, I think you're beautiful" and saying "Now I'm going to tell you how much I love you and how beautiful you are so I can get you into bed."

You have to mention an article when three people send it to you. :-)

Republicans in NY? No way! A pretty good piece about this weird breed in this hostile city.

Thanks to Bobm, Wendy and Doug.

Well, at least I'm not Hitler or Bill

What Famous Leader Are You?

Blogroll Updated

My friend Yaron has started a blog. It's called Daily Lunch. I had no influence over him starting it so don't accuse me of trying to grow my army. :-)

Bloggers Candace and Ginger, of Five Corners and Crispy Duck, respectively, have started another blog called Candied Ginger.

The number one reason I vote Republican (By Guest Blogger Candace)

is civil liberties. In particular, my freedom of religion.

With all this hullaballoo over Pat Robertson's statement that God told him Bush would win "by a landslide," I've heard more anti-religious statements in the last few days than I have in months. And I think it proves that our definition of civil liberties in general, and freedom of religion in particular, needs a second look.

For some reason, we don’t normally associate civil liberties with the Republican Party – my guess is that is because we’ve allowed (what is fondly referred to in my family as) the Anti-Christian Liberties Union, which has a particular hatred for legislation referred to by acronym, to define for us what “civil liberties” are. Allying with the left, it fails to recognize that our primary civil liberty is the right to disagree – in speech, in the press, and yes, institutionally and personally in our faiths.

I’ve written on this issue before, but Scott at Slantpoint, referring to the legislation going on in secular France, reminds us that “…Muslims need to listen to a new voice for Democracy – one speaking in English, not French,” I concur. Which is why, despite the Democrats’ ACLU-supported ranting ranting about equality and tolerance, they by no means have the authority on this topic. For example, let’s look at John Kerry’s reaction when the Pope used his religious authority to take a stand against same-sex marriage on behalf of Catholicism. The commentary linked above appropriately calls out John Kerry’s statement that, “It is important not to have the church instructing politicians. This is an inappropriate crossing of the line in this country.” It’s a reverse, anti-religion perversion of the Constitution that would ask pastors and rabbis and Muslim clerics alike to keep their mouths shut when it comes to politics and ask their religion to conform itself to the Democrats’ idea of what society should encourage. Clearly, the national religion of Kerryism is the only acceptable belief system for good “citizen soldiers!”

A religious politician hears God speak to him and the opposition explodes in fury. I'd like to clarify that many Christians not only believe, but expect that God will speak to one at some point in the relationship -- and that's not the only faith that does so. Perhaps Buchanan is wrong, and perhaps the Religious Troops will be conned into believing that they need not vote, since Bush is so clearly 'going to win.' Not only would that be bad for Bush, but bad for Buchanan's prediction. So why so much fury in the semi-public sphere? It's not a hostility to politics in general or even Buchanan in particular -- it's a hostility to religion itself.

In this light, is it any wonder that the American Muslim Political Coordination Council encouraged Muslim voters to support Bush in 2000? Despite differences of opinion from the much-exaggerated “Religious Right” and the Pat Buchanan method of conducting politics, American citizens of all faiths ought to be supporting the candidate who refuses to allow our country to be stripped of religious freedom, who supports the right to prayer in public schools and terrorist detention facilities alike, who does not pretend that Americans should not allow religion to affect their social consciousness and even the way they vote.

That’s real freedom of religion, friends. And in this world, it speaks not only English, but Texas drawl.

Oh no, not him too.

From a David Gratzer article in the Weekly Standard:

Howard Dean's campaign wants you to know that he used to be a practicing physician. Campaign literature refers to him as "Gov. Howard Dean, M.D." At public events, his supporters wave signs proclaiming "The Doctor Is In." Dean often addresses issues--mainly non-health care issues--by referring to his former occupation. "As a doctor, I know that failure to act on the environment has devastating consequences," he recently told a crowd. During one rally, he even brandished a stethoscope.

Leadership + Sexy = Billy and Me (By Guest Blogger Candace)

Well, K, you have yet to respond to Dawn Summers's quiz results, but I have a feeling you'll love mine just as much.

What Famous Leader Are You?

Lovely. :)

Toomey for Senate

Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey is a fantastic, small government conservative. His opponent Arlen Specter is, to put it politely, not. National Review voted Specter the worst Republican in the Senate (for reasons you can read here and here).

I've been in touch with the head of the Students for Toomey movement, Chris Lilik. He has a blog dedicated to the cause and organizes meetups for Toomey. To find a Toomey meetup in your area, click here:

What I don't want in a president

Right this minute, the E! channel, which makes shows like '101 Juiciest Hollywood Hookups' and 'Celebrities Uncensored', is running 'The E! True Hollywood Story' about Bill Clinton. Yeah, yeah, it was all just about a blowjob, you can tell yourself that forever, but I have a feeling there will never be an 'E! True Hollywood Story' about president Bush.

Update: During the House deliberations on his impeachment, Barbra Streisand and Jack Nicholson are shown publically defending him. The voiceover says 'all that star power couldn't save him.' Shocking. Hollywood stars can't effect government? What kind of country is this?

Money well spent.

In the past week, I've officially become a member of the NRA, the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Club for Growth. I've renewed my membership at the New York Young Republican Club and in the spirit of growing the Republican party in NYC am considering joining the 'other' NYYRC club (yes, in a city that is 5-1 Democrat to Republican we feel the need for two Young Republican clubs that, of course, don't get along). I've also renewed my National Review subscription and signed up to attend CPAC. Not a bad way to start the year.

Bush is soooo stupid

...that he manages to get Kerry every time. From BOTW:

Vote for Me, I'm a Chump--II
"Five Democratic Presidential candidates voted for the No Child Left Behind Act as members of Congress," reports the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader. "Now they complain they were victims of a legislative bait and switch, tricked into supporting a sweeping reform bill they say is underfunded by the Bush administration."

Hmm, this sounds an awful lot like John Kerry's explanation of why he voted for war in Iraq. President Bush "misled every one of us," the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, said in June. To paraphrase the first Republican president, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but President Bush can fool all of these guys all of the time.

'He's the worst national candidate ever'-Doug

"Dealing with race is about educating white folks"-Howard Dean.

Via Mickey Kaus by way of Instapundit.

'Washington DC, it's paradise to me'

I'm leaving for DC on Sunday for the better part of next month. If anybody, DC based or not, has suggestions on where to go and what to do while I'm there, drop me a comment.

P.S. The title is from a Magnetic Fields song.

No comment needed.

Mark Steyn on 'The Arab Street':

Jihan Ajlouni, a 24-year-old Palestinian university student, reacted to Saddam’s capture by warning: “We say to all the traitors and collaborators: Don’t rush to celebrate because there are millions of Saddams in the Arab world.”

You should feel humiliated. It is humiliating when you invest your pride in a total loser. The thing is: what are you going to do about it? Rise up in anger? I think not. It’s a safe bet that in 2004 the Arab street will remain as somnolent as it was in 2003 and 2002. That leaves two options: just more festering as usual, or doing something constructive. The big question in the year ahead is whether we’ll start to see forces emerge in the wider Arab world that have drawn the right conclusions from the humiliations of the last two years. You know what would humiliate me if I were a hotshot Egyptian intellectual like Mr Nassar? The Americans democratizing Iraq before Egyptians have managed to democratize Egypt. I predict a few interesting straws in the wind between now and next December.

Via Instapundit.

Lists

Peter has a 'best of 2003' music list and it seems he's finally waking up to the fact that Radiohead suck these days.

I was going to call this post 'Boker Tov', or 'Good Morning' in Hebrew (symbolizing Peter's awakening to the fact that Radiohead, again, suck), and did a google search to see if I could link to a translation of the phrase. Instead, I found this site that has a list that is important to remember for 2004.

The 5 things I loved most in 2003

(Warning: I'm about to reveal just how dorky I really am).

1. Internet, in particular blogs- Self explanatory, I love the internet. I've been online since I was about 14. I loved the bulletin boards on Prodigy but had to limit my time on them since internet was paid for by the minute. Lounging here in my living room with my wireless connection on my laptop seems lightyears ahead of using dial-up on my Mac Classic in my parent's house all those years ago. The first piece of news I got on the internet was in 1993 that River Phoenix had died. I've gotten 99% of my news online since about 2000. Blogs have made getting news more interesting than ever before. One story is praised and attacked by such a wide segment of people. Blogging displays the various positions people hold in the most clear, user-friendly way possible. There are a million ways to look at any one situation or story, blogging allows you to see all of them.

2. Meetups- I've noted frequently how much I enjoy meetups. I've been going to different Republican events in NYC for a few years now. While I like all events that combine rightwingers, a good speaker and a bar, meetups have allowed me to meet some really cool people that previously had not been part of the 'scene'. I also like that there is a meetup approximately once a week. I find that like an alcoholic needing an AA meeting, a week surrounded by liberals in NYC makes me need to be around conservatives.

3. School- I know I've complained about it, but being back in school has given me a million opportunities that I wouldn't have had otherwise (not the least of which is taking advantage of 'student rates' for just about everything). I graduate in May with a Master's degree and the possibilities of what I can do excite me very much. I don't know where I'll end up but school has opened doors for me and allowed me to do what I really love.

4. Going to Palm Beach in August- We'd taken several trips in the last year both separately and together (between Peter and I, we've visited Massachusetts, Chicago, Montreal, DC, Alaska, Ohio, Ireland, Pennsylvania and Pearl River, New York in the past year) , but this is the one that sticks out in my mind. The summer had been rainy and cold. Getting away to Palm Beach, staying at this great hotel, laying on the beach during the day and going out in Palm Beach or Miami at night was exactly what we needed. We weren't looking for crazy partying or adventure, just a rest before the cold weather arrived. I recommend Palm Beach, especially to New Yorkers sick of Miami, it's close, cheaper than most hot spots, and quite beautiful.

5. Politics- I began my obsession with politics very early in life, especially if you consider politics, as I do, a study of the world and the way that things work. When I was a kid, my father would quiz me about the capitals of various countries over breakfast (I found the capital of Honduras to be the most challenging to remember. Oddly, Tegucigalpa does not flow off a 10 year old's tongue). He would tell me stories about despots and dictators and how lucky we were to be living in this great country. Every year we celebrate our arrival in America with a cake and party. On my father's sixteenth year here (we came at different times), he got himself a Sweet Sixteen cake, heart shaped. My parents dragged me all over the world and this definitely played a significant role in who I am today. Our first trip out of the country was to Venezuela. We stayed in Caracas for a few days and then went to Arthur Conan Doyle's 'Lost World', Canaima. I saw red water and mud brick schools. We slept in huts and you could hear animals running around just outside through the night. I was fascinated. I also grew up knowing that it did matter, a lot, who was running the country. I grew up hearing about 'that idiot Carter' and what a difference a man can make. When I got to college, I was planning to be a doctor. I told this to my best friend and she said 'really? I always saw you doing something in politics.' It was honestly the first time I had ever thought about that at all. I drifted toward it rather slowly, one course per semester until one day all four of the classes I had chosen started with the POL abbreviation. Breaking it to my parents was difficult, I had never wanted to be anything but a doctor. Years later, it seems like the most obvious choice. I still had some distractions along the way (turns out, I like money and politics doesn't pay as much as you'd think), spent a few years in the legal field after college, considered law school. Politics in 2003 was exciting, less so than in 2002 and the 9/11 aftermath, but that was almost a blessing. I'm looking forward to the election and the stories it will bring with it and I'm thankful that I respect the man in the White House, he makes me proud.

A story in 3 parts

A couple of days ago, I sent Doug a rap song called '24 Hours To Live'. It's about various rappers discussing what they would do if they knew that they had 24 hours left to live. Some of what they would do is uplifting 'take kids from the ghetto, show them what they could have if they never settle', some banal 'eat some fried chicken and drink a Nantucket', and some well, bitter 'I'd even look for my dad, that I never knew, to show him how I look and my beretta too'. Doug and I talked about we would do. Doug said he would drive to Virginia. I didn't understand why he would drive 6 hours when he only had 24. I said the furthest I'd go is Brooklyn to see my family and friends.

After 9/11, I spoke to my brother about having a plan in case something goes wrong. I'm really close with him and I could see him trying to get to Manhattan while I'm making my way to Brooklyn. So, we decided that he should stay where he is and that I would come to them.

Yesterday, I was on the phone with two old friends, a girl living in Manhattan and a guy living in Brooklyn. We were talking about new years plans and she was thinking about going to Brooklyn to meet him at a party. One of them made a comment about how I never go to Brooklyn and that I hate it. I protested 'I don't hate Brooklyn! In fact, I was just recently saying that if something went down in Manhattan, I'd try to get to Brooklyn to save myself or die, whichever.' The girl said 'oh yeah, I've been thinking about that. Should I try to get to Long Island or also go to Brooklyn?' The guy said 'you girls really think about that kind of stuff?' I said 'of course!' He said 'I don't know, I just can't live in fear like that'. 'But it's not living in fear', I said, 'it's the opposite of being paralyzed by fear, it's knowing what you'll do in a bad situation, it's having a plan so you don't have to be afraid.'

I suspect it might be the difference between living in Manhattan, which frequently feels like living in a bulls-eye and living in Brooklyn, which, although known the world over for being a scary place, is almost suburban in its isolation. So, I ask you all: do you have a plan? Do you agree that our lives now must be this way?