Suitably Alarmed

No! No! No!
Some want to give the U.N. greater control in Iraq. Absolutely not. As Mark Steyn says:

The Canal Hotel turned out to be a perfect microcosm of the UN: a group of naive internationalists refusing to take the murkier characters prowling the corridors at face value and concerned only to keep the US at arm’s length. Yet for Kofi Annan, the French, the Democratic party and the world’s media, the self-inflicted insanity of what happened to the UN in Baghdad apparently demonstrates the need for Washington to hand over more control of Iraq to the blue helmets because ‘they’ve got far more experience in these kinds of situations’.

Yeah, it's like hiring someone because he's got lots of experience listed on his resume, ignoring the fact that he's been fired from every one of those jobs for gross incompetence.

'Baby Bush' Born in Baghdad

Full name: George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein. And I'm told my future son D'Artagnan (yes, really) is going to get beat up on the playground.

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

From AP: "North Korea told a six-nation conference that it has nuclear weapons and has plans to test one, a U.S. official said Thursday."

So what's the logical response?

"However, other participants said delegates agreed on the need for a second round of talks."

Yes. Talk, talk, talk. Yakkety-yak-yak-yak. Because that sure has solved all those other problems with North Korea up to now.

Ahem. RE: Religion and Government.

In case you've missed out on Instapundit's links recently.

Here's a quote from little Tommy Jefferson: "We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of, the common law."

Here's an article with more.

Socks up all the way!

I figure why waste time in the comment section when I have the ability to post. Besides, we seem to be slacking a bit in the posting anyway.

Now, Bobby, first things first. According to the secret U.S./U.K. contract, aka the Lapdog Manifesto, you shouldn't be shouting at us like that without permission. Tony Blair will be calling you shortly to demand an apology.

That said, I don't much mind if my President alienates huge swaths of the world. I don't care if the Italian "street" is angry. I don't care if the Belgians have given up making waffles to prosecute any Western government official that dares defy the E.U. I don't care if Canadians--well, the ones that are left in Canada--shake their head disapprovingly because of the stupid Kyoto treaty, which was Dead on Arrival during the LAST president's term. I know I sound like the insensitive American buffoon (and in many ways I am), but I think the "streets" in some of these countries might want to spend less time waving their fists angrily at America and turn around and recognize their own stagnating economies and woefully misguided immigration policies before those issues sneak up and bite them in the ass.

And we only turn interventionist when threatened. If we were really THAT interventionist, we would have stomped the hell out of Hussein the first time around AND taken his oil.

And it's not like we go around FORCING our culture on people. If some guy in China is stupid enough to actually DESIRE a Big Mac, well, more power to him, but he's going to need some Charmin to go with that. And it's not like we WANTED France to like Jerry Lewis or Germany to think David Hasselhoff was cool. Those people, much like Michael Jackson, embarrass even US!

All I care about is that the president has strapped on his big-ol' ass-stomping boots and he's out stomping some ass, while I'm sitting here drinking my beer in peace.

I think the record is speaking for itself. Yes, 9/11 was awful, but we haven't seen a repeat performance. And I don't see how the chuckleheads who ran this story could possibly put the U.S. above Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq and India.

Well, I guess it doesn't count as terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq until the U.N. building get blown up.

I

Wrapping up part one of the vacation (I'll write all about it over on Spot On sometime tomorrow before departing for part two) and watching CNN before checking out of our room. Wow. Could CNN be more convinced that the entire Iraq war was a huge mistake, that Bush is a cowboy, that there is no chance of our time in Iraq ending well? The news rotation every hour makes sure to note how badly everything is going and how there is , basically, no hope. I know now why Fox News has become the phenomenon it has- its anchors are so much more upbeat. These CNN anchors are so downtrodden and their bias is so obvious. The news is bad enough without the presenters adding their own sad twist, I too would tune into the station that wasn't full of doom.

Ken, I know. It can't possibly be true. Must be a fabrication of the VWRC. It's okay, though; we can always elect Howard Dean -- he promises to leave them well enough alone!

After all, we can't go around insulting potential allies like that. We should treat every country same's we do Saudi Arabia. Even better, we should make like the U.N. in Iraq. We should remove security as a gesture of peace, separate ourselves from this administration, and in general just do a little bit of harmless pandering to goodwill.

Wait, what's that you say? They'll find a reason to hate us anyway? Nonsense.

Wait, what was that last bit? You say you tried it, and it didn't work? You say that their top official died in a major tragedy? Oh. Oh, dear.

How alarming!

Candace, I, for one, am shocked, shocked and amazed and dismayed and stupefied. Iran?!? Highly Enriched Uranium? No Way. I just can't believe it.

"Iran: UN's Nuclear Agency Finds Highly Enriched Uranium"

Well, that helps things right along, doesn't it?

Don't be too alarmed.

This is how you get tough on terrorism.

"An Israeli gunboat fired at least three shells toward an unidentified target north of Gaza City (search) on Tuesday, witnesses said."

Ok. That's not nearly as bad-ass as this: "Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers disguised as Arabs raided a West Bank hospital before dawn Tuesday and snatched two wounded Palestinian militants from their beds -- one of them wanted for planning a homicide bombing."

That's right. Drag their child-murdering butts right out of the hospital. Bed-rest and three squares a day are too good for these bastards. ... Although they'll probably get that at the Israeli hospital as well.

Honey, quagmire ain't even the worst of it

Speaking of the French, where can I sign up to pretend to be an artist for three months out of the year and live off the government for another nine?

Actually, in all seriousness, this Levy guy (Bernard-Henri Levy, anti-anti-American and author of Who Killed Daniel Pearl? -- I'm getting all this from the article) has some interesting things to say. Check out these quotes:

“The real issue, which the Americans don’t see, is that the Arab Islamist threat is partly manageable,” he went on. “One can see solutions, if not easy ones, to the Israeli-Palestinian question, to the Saudi problem. The Asian Islamist threat, though, is of an entirely different dimension. There are far more people, they are far more desperate, and they have a tradition of national action. And they have a bomb. Even North Korea is less dangerous than Pakistan—a Stalinist country with a defunct ideology and a bomb is infinitely less dangerous than a country with a bomb and a new ideology in the full vigor of its first birth. That is the real nexus of the terrorism, and fussing in the desert doesn’t even begin to address it.

As the "threat of immediacy" argument was never really part of my support for Iraq, I haven't used it as a tool for thinking about how to deal with different nations. But what Levy says is interesting, and while I wouldn't say that Pakistan is the Next Big Threat, he has a point: with Saddam, with bin Laden, the biggest threat was, and is, the ideological vigor behind their organizations. I know embarrassingly little about North Korea at this point, but, while I'm not comfortable with the idea of a dangerous and sleeping giant, I'm inclined to agree with him that we've got bigger things to focus on.

Oh Dear Lord, It's A Quagmire!!!!

Drudge sometimes can be priceless in the juxtaposition of its headlines. This morning it had, across the top, the bit about more Americans lost during peace in Iraq, during the war. Then, two headlines in, you have this:

36 Children Die Left in Hot Cars in 2003.

That's right, folks. American children are losing a war of attrition against adults. At this rate, we can expect somewhere near 60 children to die in torture cars by the end of the year.

But wait, it gets better.

What many people do not realize is just how quickly cars and trucks can become stifling death traps.

Because many people are just plain stupid.

Janette Fennell, founder and president of the advocacy group Kids And Cars in Kansas City, Kan., said most cases of heat deaths involve either new parents or those who have recently changed their driving routine.

Say what? Yeah, um, I drove east today instead of west, so I'm going to leave baby in the car to broil like a flounder.

"The lion's share are loving, caring, devoted parents. We're talking educated people who love and adore their kids,'' Fennell said.

Sured. Educated people. Riiiggghhhht. Real geniuses. Folks who've NEVER heard of a baby or pet dying in a car. People unable to make that connection between, "Hey, damn it gets hot in the car during the summer," and "Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't leave the kid in the car." Besides which, what kind of parent leaves children in the car?!? My mom used to leave us in the car, but only after we'd reached an age at which, you know, we could OPEN THE DAMN DOOR AND GET OUT IF WE FELT OUR LITTLE BRAIN PANS FRYING!!!

``It says a little bit about the society we live in today. We're rushed, we're hurried; one little change can mean the difference between life and death.''

Oh, there we go. The real culprit. It's, dum-duh-dummmmmmmmmm: SOCIETY!!! Society made me do it officer. I was thinking, aw, jeez, it sure is hot out here today, maybe I shouldn't leave baby in the car, but society came along and said, "Oh, go ahead and leave him. Besides, you have to hurry off somewhere else!"

And notice this is the Guardian, no doubt trying to paint my proud American people as a race of barbarians. Hey, at least we're made of tougher stuff than the French. THOUSANDS of people died there in the course of two months. AND THEY WEREN'T EVEN LOCKED IN A CAR.

This is your resident social conservative speaking

Or, "West Coast in the hizzouse."

It may be dangerous to spend all my firepower here, but I trust my co-bloggers and our readers (are you out there) are suitably alarmed and can take me to task....

Let's talk about the 10 Commandments. Let's talk, specifically, about the inane argument Alan Colmes is making about them tonight on Everybody's Favorite Fox show.

"Don't I have the right," he says, "to go into a courtroom and not feel like I'm going to be treated differently because I don't believe in a specific God?" or something of the sort.

My answer? Love it or hate it, our justice system and what we consider right and wrong is founded fundamentally on those 10 commandments and on Judeo-Christian principles. It doesn't mean that we can establish a religion or a national god. But I think that in a courtroom, one should respect the justice system that brought one there; in any country, one should respect its laws ("When in Rome..."). Part of living here is respecting our laws, especially the fundamentals, and despite the secularization of this country, justice rests on those ideas.

So, Alan, you should never, ever be treated differently because you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and yes, what the judge said on that matter was moronic; your argument is equally so. If you're indicted by the laws that govern our society, then you're a criminal, no matter what god you believe in.

Should the commandments be there? I don't care much either way. But it's not inappropriate to reference the order from which our laws were created, at least from historical respect, and I dare say that if more members of our society respected those laws, we'd have less in those courtrooms to begin with.

I'm tired and I hope that contribution is at least relatively coherent. But I leave you to do what you do best, either way, and take me to task. I happen to know for a fact that Dawn and Bobby are particularly good at that.

UPDATE: Apparently this requires some clarification - no surprise looking at what time I wrote it. So here we go:
First, Moore's remarks were moronic, and I could go into why, but everyone else has already done so and there's no point in my rehashing that just so that I can be touted as that "reasonable conservative-hating self-proclaimed conservative." I'm not out for that title.

There is, however, a point in addressing the idea that the primary reason to remove the commandments is because they presume that someone won't be treated equally. The monument to the commandments presumes nothing of the sort. No one's being tried for whether or not they serve other gods. But it's no less inappropriate to display them than to display the Declaration. Our country's traditions come from that heritage - those are not the only traditions we have, nor should they be (see previous post). This isn't a theocracy, and it would be absurd to only offer justice to Christians and Jews. But that's not what the monument presupposes, and that's all I'm saying. That doesn't mean the monument is a great idea and I'm all for it! It just means that saying "it doesn't feel right" is a ridiculous argument against it.

Then again, taking Alan Colmes to task for ruining a perfectly decent side with a ridiculously shallow argument may also fall into the category of unnecessary rehashing.

That would never happen in America

The aforementioned appropriately pretensious pseudo-analysis of Albright's is on its way, I promise. But I've got a few quick things to say first.

Skimming through the "Letters" portion of this week's Economist, I'm noting two letters from the good old UK concerning last week's analysis of immigration to London, and the first thought to cross my mind is, "Dear Lord, you could never say that in my country."

It's no stretch to assert that it's now considered "politically incorrect" to have pride in some kind of American culture, let alone take it to the extent of some sort of superiority. Yet I've long thought that, rather than just making a blanket statement about sharing the love, we need to make sure there's still love worth sharing.

We'll start with the convenient London example. In this letter, Camberley resident Robert Walls writes:

The English may be a rather dull lot but they have created a culture of political stability and honesty. That is one of the main reasons why people want to come here. Many of our immigrants have no such tradition. Japan has an official policy of zero immigration. Its cities may lack the vitality of multicultural London but I suspect that the resulting homogeneous culture is one of the reasons why crime is so low and why the police exist mainly to give directions. Perhaps the people who are lucky enough to live here should be asked how many other foreigners they want to accommodate?

Now, I can't vouch for his assertions about Japan, knowing relatively little about the country outside of economics and a little history. But I can say that I think he's right to ask the question - shouldn't we draw a line between letting people in and losing what they're coming here for?

After all, sometimes we (unfortunately) can't have both. For example, Sweden and many other Nordic countries (as also detailed in an Economist special report sometime this summer) are currently struggling with this issue: how to take a pretty homogenous nation, with strong cultural and nationalistic ties, and integrate non-blondes, non-Western, and even non-patriots into the mix. (Add to that the troubles of youth looking outside of the country for more vibrant and innovative areas... but I digress.) It would be doable, except that those nations are infamous for their supportive social programs, such as universal health care and generous pensions, which depend on stability and some degree of homogeneity to survive.

That's basically what our friend Robert is arguing, after all: how many foreigners can London take in without losing its identity, and the traditions that make it a place people want to be? The answer is that a balance is necessary, or some of those values need to be compromised.

This brings us to the most important point: California is a prime example of trying to have the best of both worlds - and failing miserably. The combination of a radically liberal immigration policy (which promises to hit the extreme of extremes should Bustamante be successful in his gubernatorial campaign) with generous social programs is a losing one. Immigrants may, in the short terms, benefit relatively, but it isn't good for the state as a whole, or its future.

And if it's dire in London, it's teetering on the edge in California. And where it was bad under Davis, it could be worse under Bustamante. Maybe it's time for Californians - and Americans as a whole - to start taking pride in the things that make us who we are, and stop trying to play to both sides at once. And if you ask me what's great about America, it's not mother government taking care of everybody. It's letting people in (who love us for who we are, not those who want to destroy us) and opening up doors; it's removing programs that implicitly require that homogeneity and leaning toward a balanced openness that celebrates the American culture of innovation and opportunity.

And that's my two cents on the whole thing.

East Coast in the house.
I've got little to say on the news end, political end or any end for that matter. I'm taking a break from procrastinating. Had breakfast at Tom's Diner this morning, you know, the Tom's Diner from the Suzanne Vega song. That one. Or so some claim. At any rate, it's a Brooklyn landmark and right down the road from my apartment. Nicest service I've ever seen in New York and the best grits I've had since moving here. $4.35 for coffee, eggs, bacon, grits, toast. Not bad. Corner of Washington Ave. and Sterling, if you're ever in the neighborhood.

It's about as beautiful a day as you can get. For me, it feels like autumn in Louisiana, like I should be sporting my Catholic school white shirt and khaki pants and eating lunch in the cafeteria while thinking about band practice and the football game coming up on Friday night and whatever girl I happen to be hardcore crushing on that particular week. Ah, the not-so-glory days of 1990.

I'm going to say it's 78 degrees and not a drop of humidity, not a hint of cloud in the sky. Light breeze going and I'm torn between sitting out on my deck or wandering over to Prospect Park. I swear, such decisions are painful to make, but they must be made, and I'm just the man for the job.

Hopefully everyone involved can find some peace now

Your official West Coaster here, saying hello! It's Candace from 5 corners and I'll be piping in as your peppy pro-America poster from time to time. Expect me to actually show up on this site in the very near future. For now, you can head to my place to read about exciting things like cavities, doctor's visits, and fashion commentary... or just wait for me to bust a move on Madeleine Albright. Ciao for the moment ~

I figured I'd better chime in from this side of the pond. I've got nothing to say and my employers seem perversely bent on forcing me to, I don't know, work this week or something. At any rate, Bobby, while I'm all for shaming the neighbors, that sort of posting signs up about the neighbors would never fly in the states. Somebody'd get shot. Don't get me wrong.

I like our gun ownership laws in America--you know us, our minds dangerously warped by Charlton Heston--but it's just an observation.

With friends like these ...

At least he wasn't in the middle of a nap:

The vacationing Bush had cut short a golf game and returned to his ranch to monitor developments after talking by phone on the golf course with his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice....

I am already terrified of flying, highway driving and being in or on the water. Now this ? I am going back to bed.

So I rented "Sophie's Choice" this weekend. I didn't really know what to expect from the movie (I thought it was one of those classic 'lady gets fatal illness and dies' films I love so very much). To my surprise, it's a film about a crazy man and the holocaust. Meryl Streep is hella amazing and wow Kevin Kline, is my hero. (Sidenote for Ally McBeal fans, Jon Cage is in this movie and he looks about 12!) Anyway, the one flaw in the film: Sophie actually utters the words "No, don't make me choose!" Now I know it's a heartwrenching moment, but really, the movie is called Sophie's Choice! As always, my choice for rentals is netflix.com

Welcome to the guest blog of Spot On. I have invited a few people to post while I'm on vacation. The roster may grow, as some have yet to confirm, but at the moment includes: Dawn Summers, Bobby, Cajun Ken, Candace and Warren. I'm sure they will introduce themselves when they begin the blogging. This site 'officially' begins on Sunday, August 24th and ends September 2nd. The group can, of course, keep the site going if they wish to. Anyway, I hope this is fun and interesting. That's the goal.