I am no longer going to tell you every time my comments are down. I think my readership is smart enough to know that if you come on the site and there are no comments then there is a problem on the comment server. I'm going to see about getting a different server this weekend since this has been happening a lot lately and the number of hits I get goes down dramatically when people can't voice their opinions. If anyone has suggestions for the best comment server, please let me know. Ditto for a counter that won't think I'm in Korea.
# Posted 1:37 PM by Karol

My cat, Petya, died. :-(

I have taken the morning off from posting but will return this afternoon.
# Posted 11:50 AM by Karol

Unfortunately, the comment sections are down again. They should be up and running shortly.
# Posted 5:28 PM by Karol

Arafat May Appoint Prime Minister


Just so I have it straight: an unelected President is going to appoint a Prime Minister. That makes a lot of sense. Maybe next Castro can appoint a co-dictator.
# Posted 3:03 PM by Karol

The liberal Village Voice has an article comparing the current Bush administration to the Clinton one in terms of big business. What it comes up with sounds like something that conservatives have been saying all along. Of course when we say it, it's just partisanship. To quote the Voice:

One study comparing the first Bush White House with Clinton's asserts that under the Man From Hope, prosecutions of white-collar crime dropped by one-quarter and convictions by one-third. Perhaps most significantly, Clinton's Justice Department refused to act on cases referred by the EPA, the Interior Department, and other agencies. Written by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, the analysis makes clear that one business-friendly president after another set the table for today's cascading mess.

With Wall Street reeling from disclosures of cooked books, ordinary Americans are taking the hit for decades of laissez-faire governing. It's their 401(k) plans that are tanking, even as politicians complain that it's really too hard to bring criminal fraud cases against big-deal CEOs. If the execs can't be held accountable now, that's partly because corporate lobbyists spent the 1990s pushing through laws to protect business and open the way for funny-money accounting.

Measures enacted during the last Democratic administration denied investors the right to bring civil actions in state court and instead made them run a gauntlet of roadblocks at the federal level. True, Clinton did veto one egregiously pro-business measure. But by the end of his reign, the nation's statutes ensured that victims of corporations like Enron and WorldCom would struggle to get on the docket and have a much tougher time recovering damages if they ever won.

Isn't that interesting? I don't remember hearing cries of 'Clinton is tied to big business' during the 90's. I wonder why that is.

# Posted 2:38 PM by Karol

I have a question for discussion for readers of this page. John Walker Lindh has plea bargained and received a 20 year sentence for his involvement with the Taliban. I am really of two minds about this, about him. On one hand, it is not long enough. He is a traitor to his country and should be receiving the death penalty or, at the very least, life in prison. On the other hand, he is 21. His parents allowed him to go off to Yemen when he was 17 to study Islam. Does he understand what he is doing? Does he deserve to be punished as we would other adults? I really don't know. I would very much like to hear from all of you.
# Posted 12:56 PM by Karol

In a televised address today, Saddam Hussein said that the US and it's allies would not be able to topple his government. His speech read like something out of the satirical website The Onion. Among some of his more interesting comments were:


'You will never defeat me this time. Never! Even if you come together from all over the world, and invite all the devils as well, to stand by you.'


This is interesting not only because we will defeat him absolutely but because if we had defeated him the last time, then we wouldn't be in this predicament now. My hope is that George W. Bush will learn from his father's errors in weakness and finish the job completely. We can not accept an unelected madman at the helm of a country that is producing weapons of mass destruction. It is as simple as those words.

Saddam urged Iraqis to "fight with valor, chivalry, patience and resolve, as you have always done when forced."


To hear him admit so freely that his people would not fight unless forced is jarring. Is the world listening?


The BBC Website has a nice summing up of the case against Iraq.
# Posted 11:24 AM by Karol

James Taranto's The Best of the Web on Opinion Journal always gets it right and today is no exception. He says the obvious and says it in a way that should make ashamed those who disagree due to their weakness and bigotry. Mr. Taranto writes:

Just Your Run-of-the-Mill Finnish Car Bombing

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt--or in Los Angeles. As the FBI tries to puzzle out what might possibly have motivated an Egyptian man to go on an Independence Day shooting spree at L.A.'s El Al counter, cops all over the world are grappling with similar mysteries. "A car exploded about 200 yards from a synagogue in downtown Helsinki early on Tuesday, killing the driver, injuring a passerby and blowing out windows," Reuters reports. Detective Chief Inspector Olli Toyras tells the Associated Press: "We are treating this as an isolated incident. We don't believe there are any terrorism or political links."


In Canada, David Rosenzweig, a Hasidic Jew, was stabbed to death Sunday, the Toronto Star reports:


Witnesses heard one of the attackers yelling, "He's a rabbi," before he pulled out a 30-centimetre [12-inch] knife and thrust it into Rosenzweig's lower back. The bearded victim was wearing a traditional Jewish kippa [yarmulke] and a suit.


The Jerusalem Post quotes Staff Inspector Bob Clarke of the Toronto police: "The evidence and research that we've done does not support this as being a hate-related crime."


At least the Israelis won't have any problem figuring out the nature of this crime: "Seven people were killed and at least 20 people were injured when an explosive device was detonated near a bus and shots fired at passengers" near the Jewish town of Immanuel in the West Bank, Ha'aretz reports. Hamas confessed to the massacre, as did the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Yasser Arafat's al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.


Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.


Only journalists seem to have trouble figuring out that this attack is terrorism. Reuters trots out its usual scare quotes and says that Colin Powell "said again the United States believed Arafat, accused by Washington of running an administration tainted by 'terrorism' and corruption, had no place in future peace talks." Britain's left-wing Guardian even puts the death toll in scare quotes: " 'Seven Killed' in West Bank Attack."


But hey, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, right? Saddam Hussein, for instance, says: "Whenever a [suicide] attack occurs against the enemy, I feel as if I carried it out myself and every Arab should look at these acts this way."
# Posted 5:13 PM by Karol

Jonah Goldberg, who popularized the phrase created by the Simpsons 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' referring to the French, had been promising a Bastille Day special of his column. The delivery of it today was no disappointment to those of us who look incredulously at France.
# Posted 4:14 PM by Karol

A sad but realistic article in Canada's National Post talks about the end of leftism in Israel. To be clear, the idea of left and right in political terms in Israel has little in common with the same separations in America. As Robert Fulford, the writer of the column, describes 'In Israel, the terms "right" and "left" seldom refer to economics or the welfare system. "Right" usually means approaching negotiations with suspicion and supporting settlements in the disputed lands. "Left" means a good-hearted eagerness to negotiate with the Palestinians, an attitude that may be revived eventually but has now become so unpopular that it seems almost quaint.'

It might come as a surprise that I think the death of this kind of optimism is sad. It shouldn't. We should all be sad that hope for negotiation is gone. It's the right thing that it is gone, but it can never be a good thing.

# Posted 1:48 PM by Karol

A good article in the American Prowler, pointed out by John Derbyshire in National Review's The Corner talks about the Israeli sympathizers among the Palestinians who give information about future terrorist attacks to Israeli sources. These sympathizers, when caught, are often killed by a firing squad for 'suspected collaboration.' The Palestinian Authority used to give these people at least a show trial but now 'preferring to avoid the controversial trials', they are being murdered in the streets.

The outcry about this has been huge from all sources starting with the major press in the Western countries right on up to our elected officials. The calls of condemnation of Arafat's Palestinian Authority have been deafening. Oh wait, sorry, I was daydreaming again.
# Posted 12:08 PM by Karol

The saga of the comment section continues. They were here but now they're gone. Stop complaining to me, I'm not purposely trying to stifle opinion (hehe). Bother www.enetation.co.uk instead.
# Posted 2:15 PM by Karol

Crime Crisis in Britain!
# Posted 1:22 PM by Karol

Amy Fisher is writing a column for a small Long Island newspaper. This week she writes about finding love on the internet. She wants to know: 'Does finding the person of your dreams seem like a never-ending journey through smoke-filled bars and deafening nightclubs? Going out at all hours of the night hoping some attractive person will look your way? Shooting their wife in the face to get her out of the way?' Ok, you got me, I made up that last one.
# Posted 11:52 AM by Karol

I'm not sure what is wrong with the comment section but hopefully it will be back up soon.
# Posted 10:47 AM by Karol

Dan Savage has made my blood boil on so many occasions with his leftwing anger hidden in his weekly sex column for the Village Voice (like when he harassed Ralph Nader voters aggressively that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush) that it is shocking to me that I just read something by him that I love.


I first read about this piece in last Thursday's Best of the Web under the heading 'Intelligence Watch.' I read the excerpt that BOTW highlighted and it was about how Savage, a huge Gore supporter, likes the Bush doctrine which he describes as 'if we think you're coming after us next Tuesday, we'll be bombing your ass flat this Tuesday.' I didn't read the whole piece but then got interested in it again when Andrew Sullivan mentioned it on his site from a different angle. The excerpt noted there spoke of Savage's gag reflex whenever he would see a peace sign with an American flag preaching 'peace with patriotism.' I know I have the same reflex and as that is the first thing Savage and I have ever agreed on (other than various sexual ideas) I was motivated to read his article.


His piece really threw me in it's honesty. He writes about how it has been the reaction of some of the left to still be preaching 'peace' even after September 11th. Savage notes that no such peace is possible now and that they must be realistic. He calls the hippies at the Seattle Weekly, the lefty publication that slapped the American flag peace symbol on it's cover that so offended Savage, 'braindead' and quotes George Orwell's call to peacenik Brits in the 40's 'pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist', implying that in this case pacifism is objectively pro-terrorist. He is for getting rid of Saddam and he is for doing whatever it takes to make sure we don't lose any number of Americans again. I think an opinion like that on September 10th would've been an inherently conservative one. Today, it strips us of our ideology to agree with it.


Savage goes on to explain to his liberal compatriots what point they should be arguing right now. The liberal position, he says, should be that the smart bombs and troops to Iraq 'have to be followed by smart money and medicine and a constitution and an American commitment to long-haul nation building.' He also criticizes the left for not already making this argument saying that he realizes 'that grandstanding and screaming "warmonger" at people....is whole lot more fun than taking responsibility for a war that's being waged in all of our names" but also says that he realizes that it goes deeper than that and claims that since the left lost the 'no war' argument "a perverse desire to see things go badly--even at the cost of Afghan and Iraqi lives--has taken root." That this is so is no secret to the American right but that a self proclaimed leftist admits it is quite big news. And, it's quite sad as well.


To be fair though, the definite impression I get is that these types of people are in the minority. Most leftwingers I know, with the rare exception, have never even entertained the idea that there will be no long war over the events of last September. They are indistinguishable from my rightwing friends in their quest for justice and retaliation. The most common change in most of my leftwing friends is that they are almost uniformly happy that it is Bush who is president and not Gore. They feel that Bush is better able to defend our country and they feel safer with him and his team. When pressed they admit that they never thought of this kind of idea before September. Defense and intelligence spending was never important to them. Now, it is all that is important to them. They have become conservatives overnight and it is interesting to watch that when idealism is tested, the reality that sets in is the same for us all. Savage doesn't go so far as to say that he is happy with Bush but for a public liberal to say that he is happy with the Bush doctrine is miles in the right direction as it is. As for the fight he says the liberals should be fighting, I agree with him completely. To not complete the job of setting up democratic governments is to leave ourselves open to further attacks. Perhaps it is the rightwing idealism in me that says that a democratic state will not be a breeding ground for terrorism. I'm fine with being that kind of idealist. As for giving peace a chance, Jonah Goldberg said it best: 'we gave peace a chance and they blew up the World Trade Center. Now it's time to give war a chance.'
# Posted 9:06 AM by Karol

Another joke by those fun-loving Palestinians? Click here for photo.
# Posted 8:06 PM by Karol

I think this will be my third lovefest toward Mark Steyn in one week. I apologize and promise to have some other authors to idolize soon. His writing is just so good and on that I can't help myself in quoting it. He is also on the same page as me not only politically in general, but with current events thoughts. He writes:

It doesn’t really matter what Bush does any more. He’s appallingly isolationist except when he’s being dangerously interventionist. He’s an arrogant, swaggering cowboy except when he’s being a shrinking violet.

Where have I heard a similar idea?

The piece overall is about how Arafat is gone and Europe won't admit it. It is an excellent read and I strongly recommend it.
# Posted 11:14 AM by Karol

I usually leave the Saudi bashing to my boyfriend but two current stories make me need to make mention.

A stunning chart put together by Deroy Murdock for National Review details the payments the Saudis have made to the homicide bombers in Israel, even though they claim to be our partners in the war on terror. As Mr. Murdock writes 'This belies the official Saudi claim that their philanthropy is aimed broadly at Palestinians and not targeted to encourage bloodthirsty killers.' If these documents aren't enough to sever our friendship with the House of Saud, I can't imagine what is. This is a tie that America needs to cut. It's embarrasing to me that we pander to these people. What exactly do we need from them? Their oil? Canada is the US's number one supplier of oil and with a Russian market quickly opening up I don't understand why we still choose to be connected to them. Their own people would overthrow the corrupt family that runs the country if we stepped aside. Who knows what the next regime would bring but it certainly couldn't be worse than what we have now.

Another interesting piece today about the Sauds and our weakness towards them tells the story of an American woman trapped in Saudi Arabia because of a failed marriage to a Saudi man. She and her children aren't permitted to leave and the US embassy in the 'Kingdom' not only does not help them but have actually turned marines on them when they arrived for assistance. It's a tragedy that we, the most powerful country in the world, can't swing our might around when it comes to helping our citizens abroad. We've become so soft and complacent that these kinds of stories don't enrage us as they once did, as they should.

# Posted 5:07 PM by Karol

While it may seem to some that armed pilots is something I would definitely want, I find that my reaction to the House passing a bill permitting pilots to carry guns leaves me feeling that it might not be such a good idea. Don't get me wrong, arm the security guards in airports, have armed guards in the air, arm the stewardesses, arm anyone that needs to be armed but the the pilots have a different job to do: to fly the plane. My reasons are few and quite straightforward: I don't want the door to the cockpit open for any reason and I don't want the pilot to have anything on his mind other than landing safely. The door being open can easily lead to a takeover of the cockpit. What if there are 10 terrorists on board? What is the pilot with his one gun going to do?
# Posted 12:51 PM by Karol

U.S. Drops Demand for War Court Immunity

Someone please remind President Bush that he is supposed to be an isolationist.
# Posted 10:24 AM by Karol

I promise it wasn't my intention to ever write about George Michael again (in a public restroom you sicko!?!?) but when I was looking at my site stats I found that a significant number of people were visiting here because of a Google search for George Michael's 'Shoot the Dog'. I went over to Google and did the search myself and of the 253 sites that came up, mine was not one of them. Sigh.

Anyway, what I did find though was that George Michael was on a 'CNN show' (which show it was is not named by the BBC site) where he attempted to defend his song against strong American criticism. He said 'I am definitely not anti-American - my feelings about George W Bush, however, are a little different. And I know I'm not alone in fearing his politics, and in hoping that our man Tony can be a calming and rational influence on him.'

Now, if I knew which show it was, I would love to read the transcript and see if the follow-up question included a specific inquiry about which of George W.'s politics Mr. Michael finds so offensive. I would put money on the fact that if questioned his whole 'I find Bush scary' argument would fall apart quickly. I sincerely doubt that he would be able to talk about much of anything he "disagrees" with using any kind of specifics.

It's so trendy and cool, particularly in Europe (sorry that I'm picking on Europe so much this week and I know I'm going to get a whole bunch of comments to the contrary from my awesome British friends but this is just my personal opinion as you can see I have no data to back it up) though it does happen in the US, especially New York, to say bad things about President Bush. Usually, when I press the person for more information (and believe me, I press) they are unable to say anything more than a few catchphrases like 'he's against the environment' or 'he's not pro women' or my personal favorite 'he's not for the people.' It's considered enlightened to be against anything he might stand for. It's not just him, it's the entire 'rightwing.' Leftwing cool, rightwing not cool. I have a friend, in Scotland, who refuses to read my website. When I asked him why he said 'I've had a look at it from time to time and as I don't share the same viewpoint as yourself I've no real desire to go back to it on a regular basis.' When he and I have talked about politics in the past his opinions have been very vague and he didn't seem very interested. But, he knows I'm on the Right and he knows that he isn't supposed to be. If tested, he would not be able to come up with what exactly he disagrees with. His friends who disagree with me using any kind of actual information do so freely in my comment sections. I wish he would too.

When Newt Gingrich was the big media target during his heydey, Time Magazine did a poll to see who had favorable opinions of him. A high percentage said they saw him unfavorably. I always wished the follow up question would be 'can you give us three reasons as to why?' I would again put money on the fact that more than half of the people would be unable to give even one example of why they disliked him. They just knew that they should. I suppose though that it's easier to be ignorant and have your opinions spoonfed to you by others in convenient snippets. Goodness knows I take advantage of lazy people that way. I guess I just wish I was better at it.

# Posted 5:01 PM by Karol

Mark Steyn knocks another one out of the park with his column regarding the reluctance of our officials to categorize the July 4th attack as terrorism. Thanks to Dan for the link. I suggest reading the entire hilarious piece but my favorite part is this:

On the Fourth of July (hint) a guy went to the airport in Los Angeles, sauntered up to the ticket counter of El Al (hint) and fatally shot two people and wounded three. How many folks hearing the news on a quickie radio update honestly expected it to be anyone other than a Muslim male of Middle Eastern origin? Obviously, Underperformin' Norman Mineta, the scrupulously sensitivity-trained U.S. Transportation Secretary, would have been wary of jumping to conclusions. Were he running the LAPD, he'd have pulled in a couple of elderly nuns and Kelli-Sue, a trainee hairdresser from Des Moines.


But, fortunately for the final death toll, El Al has its own security and so the suspect, after firing 10 rounds, was himself killed. And whaddaya know? He wasn't an elderly nun but a 41-year-old Egyptian male! His name wasn't Kellie-Sue, it was Hesham Mohamed Hadayet!


This stunning development seems to have completely disoriented the FBI. I quote from The New York Times headline: "Officials Puzzled About Motive Of Airport Gunman."


Hmm. Egyptian Muslim kills Jews on American national holiday. Best not to jump to conclusions. Denial really is a river in Egypt. "It appears he went there with the intention of killing people," said Richard Garcia, the Bureau's agent in charge. "Why he did that we are still trying to determine."


CNN and The Associated Press all but stampeded to report a "witness" who described the shooter as a fat white guy in a ponytail who kept yelling "Artie took my job." But, alas, this promising account proved to be a prank. Saudi Arabia's popular Arab News suggested that Mr. Hadayet had made the mistake of doing business with El Al and that "the Israeli airline had been late in paying for two limousine rentals from the Egyptian immigrant's company." If a couple of late cheques were a motive for murder, Izzy's and Conrad's heads would now be stuffed and mounted in my trophy room. But, sadly, this cautionary tale about the Jew bloodsucker's commercial wiles proved also to be false.


That left the police with no leads. Nothing to go on. The trail's stone cold. All the FBI has is an Egyptian male, who'd complained to his apartment managers after his neighbours post-9/11 began displaying the American flag; who'd posted a banner saying "READ KORAN" on his own front door; who told his employees that he hated Israel, that the two biggest drug dealers in New York were Israelis, and that Israel was trying to wipe out the Egyptian population by flooding the country with AIDS-infected Jewess prostitutes.


That's the second time today that I can't be sure if something is funny or sad.
# Posted 10:50 AM by Karol

Rude


Tommy Thompson, US Secretary of Health, was in Spain yesterday speaking at the 14th International AIDS Conference. Midway through his speech, protesters stormed the room shouting 'shame' through bullhorns. The text of Mr. Thompsons speech which he wasn't allowed to deliver said that the US would double it's financing to $500 million over the next 18 months, for programs "to prevent the transmission of H.I.V. from mothers to infants and to improve the health care delivery systems in 12 African nations and the Caribbean."


The New York Times says that 'The White House has budgeted $988 million for worldwide anti-AIDS efforts this year, including $200 million for the global fund.'


I watched the Tommy Thompson attack on Fox yesterday and it was sickening. He wasn't allowed to finish his talk and it wouldn't matter what he was saying anyway. Nothing we will ever do will be enough for these types of people. No matter what the situation, America is to blame. If we act, then we are imposing our empire on them. If we don't, we are 'murderers' as the disgusting signs these ingrates were carrying read. The US does more than any other country, by far, in terms of AIDS funding and research. It is ridiculous that we can't have our government officials treated with respect when they are abroad.


# Posted 10:22 AM by Karol

The first thing you'll ask yourself is 'is this for real?' When you realize it is, you won't know whether it's funny or very, very sad.
# Posted 9:11 AM by Karol

I know it is a small point, a word really and not much more, but it really annoys me that the incident at LAX is not being considered terrorism. I just don't get it. What part of an Egyptian man with a anger about American flags being flown walking into an airport and shooting up an El Al counter not be considered terrorism? To me this is the September 10th mentality all over again. We refuse to believe that we are a target. Despite all the threats and warnings, we're so blind to it. We want this to be some random incident but it's not and we have to accept that.

Christopher Caldwell, newly returned to New York Press, has this to say about the 'not calling it terrorism' problem:

After having spent the whole week prior to the Fourth warning us to be vigilant against terror, you’d think the Bushies might have reached that conclusion, too. And yet administration officials were leery of using the T-word. "There is no evidence," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, "no indication at this time that this is terrorists." No indication? Gee, Ari, those are strong words. What do you think El Al stands for in the minds of the Arab world? "Excellence in Aviation"? What was the motive of Hadayet (whose father, by the way, had been a general in the Egyptian army)? Was he frosted by El Al’s unwillingness to honor his frequent-flyer miles?


It makes one want to ask what the administration thinks terrorism is. What was missing from this particular incident? The shouts and prayers? The Terrorist Instruction Manual left in the car? The tape sent to Al-Jazeera?

I realize it's hard to define and there might be situations where we truly question whether something is a terrorist act. I think this situation is as clear as can be and must be treated as we would any other act of war within our borders.
# Posted 4:29 PM by Karol

The Guardian manages to spin the LAX incident as a case against having armed guards in airports. Mocking the idea of security, Peter Preston writes:


'Two innocents killed at a ticket check-in are two too many. They are also mere drops in the ocean of blood which the US allows to flow daily - including on July 4 - through a society where guns and gun culture remain ubiquitous. There is no reason to give the panic button marked "security" another push. But, from David Blunkett down to George Bush, we appear to have lost the capacity to think clearly about it. '


Well, I'm thinking clearly and what I'm thinking is this: a man walks into an airport on the fourth of July. Said man is armed with a gun, refills of bullets, and two knives. This man is not there to kill one or two people. This man is out to SLAUGHTER. It enrages me that pieces like this can be written with a good heart and head. It seems like nothing more than an excuse or a weak decision that will cause nothing less than murder of my fellow Americans and Jews. Do real lives matter to Mr. Preston or is it just ideology? Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, the terrorist, was brought down by a quick thinking, ARMED, El Al security guard. Had the guard reached for his gun and found a stick, the murder of two could have easily been the murder of many more. To say that we are preoccupied with security is just absurd. I hope for nothing more than this kind of preoccupation. I hope this while sitting at the top of the Chrysler building, now the second tallest building in New York, on a clear Tuesday.
# Posted 2:27 PM by Karol

'There is a reason that George Bush has not had time in his two years in office to devote even 30 minutes to a dialogue with us. In spite of that we continue to reach out to invite.' -NAACP President Kweisi Mfume

He is, of course, implying that George W. Bush hasn't given his organization any time because obviously he is a racist. Hmmm....a reason, yes there must be a reason, let's see if we can help Kweisi to understand.

Could it be that Julian Bond, the NAACP's chairman accused President Bush of selling 'snake oil' and being part of a 'right-wing conspiracy?' Could it be, as the Washington Times reports, that though 'the NAACP maintains it is nonpartisan, a requirement it must fulfill to keep its tax-exempt status' it still has a 'legislative agenda closely follows that of the Democratic Party?' Could it be because of that incident during the 2000 campaign, where the NAACP ran the nonpartisan ad that all but accused George W. of being responsible for the dragging death of a black man in Texas? Lastly, could it be that George W. Bush has no time for an organization who invites that race baiter, Jesse Jackson, to it's events and lets Jackson pontificate that 'President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are the most threatening combination in our lifetime?'


So gee, Kweisi, why do you suppose G.W doesn't accept your 'reaching out'? Perhaps he knows who his friends in the African American community are. If I was President Bush I wouldn't even go as far as he currently goes, last year sending a videotape and this year sending a letter that 'paid tribute to the NAACP for its "commitment to public service" and its "important efforts to support civil rights"' Instead, I would be sending a letter letting you know that you now pay taxes for being a tool of the Democrats.

# Posted 11:50 AM by Karol

There's a good piece in the Guardian today about the advent of queer conservatives in the US. The new 'homocons', as they are called, are rising in numbers and popularity due to several high profile writers like Andrew Sullivan and Norah Vincent.

It never made much sense to me that gay people methodically voted Democrat and I've always questioned how groups can be become so closely affiliated with any one party. I had a friend in college who was a Republican on the day I met him in freshman year. He realized he was gay somewhere in the middle of his college career. During the election of 2000, I wrote to him and asked if we were still on the same page politically. He wrote me back that his heart was winning out over his head and that he would vote for Gore. When I tried to pursue it, to point out that Gore was also against same sex marriage, he wrote me back that we shouldn't talk about politics anymore. What had happened to him? Did all the values he believed in while growing up in Rhode Island not matter anymore because of this other thing, this being gay thing? I didn't understand and still do not. At least he realized that voting Republican was using one's head.

The best and most obvious idea to me is as Andrew Sullivan wrote 'those of us who want to offer a different future for homosexuals - integration into the wider world, the replacement of victimology with self-esteem, a free market economy where individuals can pursue their dreams regardless of sexual orientation' should be able to promote such an idea. That isn't always the case. The stringent gay left does not take kindly to these new rebels. As the Guardian reports, 'Rebecca Isaacs, of the influential LA Gay and Lesbian Centre, said some of the conservative gay commentators were being promoted because the media enjoyed seeing the traditionally liberal gay community being attacked.' I would say that these writers, in particular Ms. Vincent and Mr. Sullivan, are some of the most creative, sharp thinkers with the clearest, most captivating writing around, gay or straight. Their opinions are real and they are well thought out. There isn't any rehearsal in what they promote. They go with what they feel and the reader is privy to that. It's easy for Ms. Isaacs to dismiss this and of course she feels her previously unquestioned world being threatened. At the moment, according to the gay political group the Log Cabin Republicans, somewhere in the range of 25 to 30% of gay voters are Republican. President Bush has openly gay members of his administration. There is a new bill just passed by the Senate named after Father Mychal Judge, an openly gay Catholic priest who was one of the World Trade Center attacks first victims, regarding the benefits that will be accorded to partners of the victims of the WTC tragedy. This bill will surely be used in the future to insure benefits to other gay couples. Things have changed and are changing all the time. Will the gay community be allowed to change as well?
# Posted 3:00 PM by Karol

My favorite bagel place gets me with this scam all the time.
# Posted 1:14 PM by Karol

Mark Steyn, my favorite Canadian writer, urged Americans as they celebrate this Independence Day to 'celebrate also their independence -- not just from George III but from the rest of what passes for the civilized world.' My favorite part sums up something that has been getting under my skin ever since I saw that million plus march on Paris against Le Pen. Now, it's obvious (I hope), that I am no Le Pen fan. However, when I saw all those people marching against a democratic result in the primary, when I heard world leaders call for France to vote for Chirac, when Chirac refused to debate Le Pen, it seemed to me that the stifling of democracy had already occurred and Le Pen, no matter how fascist the Europeans caricature him to be, could do no further damage. Mr. Steyn sums this all up brilliantly:

'That's where the EU, in their haste to line up at the Eurinals and spray their contempt over Bush, are missing the point. Who is this arrogant cowboy, they sneer, to tell the Palestinians whom they can vote for. Actually, that's not what Bush said. The guys who tell people who they can vote for are the Europeans. Only a couple weeks back, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder told the French to vote for Chirac. In February, the Belgian Foreign Minister threatened sanctions against Italy if they voted for Umberto Bossi's Northern League. When Austria proved less pliable and admitted duly elected members of Joerg Haider's Freedom Party to the coalition government, the EU did, indeed, impose sanctions.'

Now, what is the deal with this exactly? It's hard to tell from this side of the Atlantic but what does Average Pierre European (I'm trying to think of the counterpart of 'Average Joe American') think about this? I'd really like to know. I want to hear the argument for the other side on this. I want to hear how this could possibly be healthy for Europe as a whole or for the individual countries. I have run all the possible scenarios of what it would consist of in my head and have come up with nothing.
# Posted 9:46 PM by Karol

Is it ever terrorism when the attacks are on Jews?

From National Review's 'The Corner'

ARE WE TURNING FRENCH?: [Rod Dreher] Authorities are hesitant to label the LAX attack "terrorism." Let's see: the murderer was an Egyptian-born Muslim who turned up at the counter of the Israeli national airline, heavily armed, and starts shooting. Excuse me, but why is this not terrorism? I wonder if the eight children left behind by one of the Islamofascist shooter's victims have any trouble discerning whether or not this is terrorism. By this standard, all the anti-Semitic violence of late in France, which has been carried out by Arab Muslims, is not terrorism either, but random criminal acts. Come to think of it, isn't that what the French authorities have been saying?

# Posted 9:35 PM by Karol

OK, obviously I really missed posting while I was in upstate New York these past 4 days so I am writing up a small storm.
# Posted 9:30 PM by Karol

"I am not against Israeli nationals per se; it is Israeli institutions as part of the Israeli state which I absolutely deplore."

I've been hearing a lot of this lately, this idiotic separation that anti-Semites have in their heads. It isn't Jews I hate, no of course not that would be crass, it's just the 'Jewish lobby' or the 'Israeli government' or 'Israeli aggression against the innocent and defenseless Palestinians.' The quote above, about not hating Israeli nationals PER SE, was spoken by Mona Baker, a professor at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology in England. Prof Baker asked Dr Miriam Shlesinger and Professor Gideon Toury to resign from the boards of two academic journals she owns, after signing a website petition last month calling for academics to boycott Israel. When they refused to resign she fired them. When asked about her decision she simply said 'I deplore the Israeli state. Miriam knew that was how I felt and that they would have to go because of the current situation.' Nice, right?

I am constantly being assured that anti-Semitism isn't running rampant through Britain (despite Le Affaire Bernard-amongst other scandals-in which an ambassador from France to Britain said at a dinner party that he couldn't believe that World War III was going to start because of 'that shitty little country Israel' and the outrage in Britain was not that he said it but that the journalist who published it broke dinner party etiquette in reporting it) and the rest of Europe and that these are isolated incidents and it's just getting impossible to believe. This separation between the hatreds mentioned above does not exist and one can't console themselves with the belief that it does forever. If you hate the Israeli army for defending Israeli children against people who seek to murder them, not to attain any particular goal but simply to remove them from the earth, then you hate me and that is that. I refuse to hear 'I simply don't like Israel's actions, it is nothing against you' because it is against me, it is against all Jews. You would not let what is happening to Israel stand with any other country. You would not let academics be fired for the passport they hold. I want to hear outrage from my British counterparts, true feelings that this is a black mark on Britain. Will I though?
# Posted 8:52 PM by Karol

'But the truth is that Osama Bin Laden is dead,' so says an article in Arab News.
Well, let's hope so.
# Posted 8:25 PM by Karol

I won't be posting until Monday but come on back then.

Have a nice weekend everyone. Be safe.
# Posted 4:32 PM by Karol

Happy 4th

With the celebration of our country's independence tomorrow I am in patriotic article reading overload. Most sites and newspapers has a few 'why this country is great' articles (at first I wrote 'every' site and newspaper did but after checking The Nation and Mother Jones, I have found this to be not true). Among my favorites is a piece on National Review by Susan Konig. She lists 10 reasons why despite the vague threats our government has received, the terrorists won't strike on the 4th. My personal feeling is that they won't either, mostly because I don't think our holidays mean a damn thing to them and also because they were smart enough to strike on a random, sunny Tuesday when we were all not paying any attention and that seemed to have worked best for them, so why change what works? Why risk detection on a day when all of us will be on alert?

Konig has some really good reasons on her list. Among them are:

'We're too ticked off. Americans are emerging from the grief of September 11 and we're angry. We are not in the mood to be cowed. Ever see a couple of average Americans fighting over a parking space at Jones Beach? Don't mess with us.


The element of surprise is gone. Buying too much fertilizer and trying to rent a Ryder truck? We're onto you — writing down your license-plate number, getting your picture on videotape, tracing your credit card. You paid cash? Fuggedaboutit, you're busted.


This ain't France. We don't let people terrorize Jews here.'

Over at Opinion Journal, Peggy Noonan also has a list. Her's is about the 10 'lights that didn't fail.' Among them are the heroes of 9/11, the internet (and specifically blogging) and American abundance. My favorite item is her last one where she salutes new Americans. She writes:

'The other day I went to the oath-taking ceremony for new citizens at the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn. There were hundreds of people in saris, in skullcaps, in suits made in Romania. There was a hugely pregnant woman from Nigeria, dressed in a red-and-white plaid cotton dress; there were young Eastern European women in too-tight pants from the Gap; there were young men in gym clothes. The usual mix from all over the world. They were so happy to be joining what others of us were lucky enough to be born into. They knew they were in the right place doing the right thing, and changing their lives for the better.

New Americans. We hold high this sparkler for you.'

I thought that was a beautiful way to end her piece. We're not afraid to still be a welcoming, amazing country. We remain commited to being a melting pot and we're not going to let some terrorists with their backward ideas on life and liberty change that.

That was me taking the same oath when I was a child. I stood with my mom in the hot courtroom and swore allegiance to this country. The Pledge was actually the first English I knew, having learned it from watching Romper Room on TV (I can let you each imagine for yourselves what it would be like if children's shows said the Pledge today). After the swearing in, the judge asked if anyone had any questions. I realize now that it may have been a rhetorical question but I raised my hand and the judge saw me, a little girl in her pink dress with pink sneakers. He smiled a grandfatherly smile and told me to come up on the stage. My question was this: 'why did one have to be 18 to vote?' I was maybe 7 years old or so and I felt I could make informed decisions about who to vote for and felt rather cheated when my parents went off without me to pick our leaders(yes it was obvious even then that politics would consume me). My mother was terrified, not knowing what was going on but seeing me on stage she thought I had gotten into some trouble. People were taking pictures of me and my mom asked someone nearby what was happening. The woman explained it to her and also offered to send her a photo of me with the judge. The judge never did answer my question. The woman sent my mother the photo in a nice frame. If I knew more about html and websites in general I would post it here as proof. Also because I was one cute kid with my pink dress and red curls.

In a few days it's going to be my 24th anniversary of living in this country. I've had my 'cool' teenage lapses of hating America, finding fault in everything, and I had my parents there to shake their heads and say 'you don't know, you can't know, you were too young when you came here.' I know now. I've been around a little more now and my renewed feverish love for this country didn't begin with 9/11, though it did intensify then, but rather from seeing what else the world had to offer. My own list about what I love about America is short:


I love that we are free, free-est of any nation.

I love that we are strong.

I love (and I know this is going to be seen as a minor thing but go live elsewhere and you'll know that it's not) that things work here. They function. You can order a burger in the middle of the night. You can't order much anywhere else in the world and certainly not after dark. You can call a toll free number for almost everything. In Britain, you have to call something like a 1-900 number at some ridiculous rate just to find out the train schedule. There is airconditioning in every office building, car, bus, train, store and museum. I almost died in the Louvre in August. Nobody looks at you funny when you order something off the menu with a few changes. You can't imagine the glares I got in Europe when I would just ask for no mayo. You can return clothing to big department stores, with no receipt, months after you've bought something. Customer service is an oxymoron in most other countries. The same department stores are open until around 8pm most days, 10pm during the holiday season. Don't even imagine it's like that anywhere else. 5pm is a stretch. My brother's 20 year old girlfriend is making $15 an hour at her summer job as an intern. My brother is taking a history class called 'World War I' for credit at a local college for the summer even though he is a pre-med student at a different school. Trying doing either of those last two things anywhere else in the world. Elsewhere, pay often goes according to age and don't even think about deviating from your subject matter at University, let alone taking classes as a different University and expecting them to count towards your degree. And on and on. It's these little things that I love the most. It's those exact things that can't be replicated, the easy way everything goes here. As I get older they are the things I appreciate most.



# Posted 10:08 AM by Karol