The Deluge

Yesterday, a NY lower court said the state Constitution and Civil Rights law allowed gay marriage. The decision is an atrocity: founded on policy, dismissive of statute and precedent. The Judge, liberal Doris Ling-Cohan, based the ruling principally on the state Constitution's general due process clause (Art. 1, Section 6). That clause says nothing about same-sex marriage, of course--but she read the right to marry as fundamental and inclusive of gays. The judge relied heavily on a statute defining marriage as civil -- not religious -- without forbiding gay marriage (DR Section 10), but trivialized nearby sex-specific clauses:

1. DR Section 12: the parties must solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife.



2. DR Section 15(a): It shall be the duty of the town or city clerk when an application for a marriage license is made to him or her to require each of the contracting parties to sign and verify a statement or affidavit before such clerk or one of his or her deputies, containing the following information. From the groom: Full name of husband, place of residence, social security number, age, occupation, place of birth, name of father, country of birth, maiden name of mother, country of birth, number of marriage. From the bride: Full name of bride, place of residence, social security number, age, occupation, place of birth, name of father, country of birth, maiden name of mother, country of birth, number of marriage.



3. DR Section 50: Property of married woman. Property, real or personal, now owned by a married woman, or hereafter owned by a woman at the time of her marriage, or acquired by her as prescribed in this chapter, and the rents, issues, proceeds and profits thereof, shall continue to be her sole and separate property as if she were unmarried, and shall not be subject to her husband's control or disposal.



4. DR Section 73(1): Any child born to a married woman by means of artificial insemination performed by persons duly authorized to practice medicine and with the consent in writing of the woman and her husband, shall be deemed the legitimate, natural child of the husband and his wife for all purposes.

The court conceded the state's Human Rights Law didn't address marriage, but relied in part on the state Civil Rights Law that was similarly silent. Footnote 35 is an especial horror--she construes a statute explicitly prohibiting inferences about gay marriage as part of the "evolving" trend.

The court claimed to rely on state decisional law, but cited a slew of Federal rulings (Lawrence especially), plus the ever-popular "what does Canada do" irrelevancy. She stayed clear of equal protection, in light of authoritative state precedent (Under 21 v. City of New York, 482 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 1985) (Human Rights Law does not “include a person’s ‘sexual orientation or affectional preferences’ among the proscribed basis” of discrimination.). Yet the Judge essentially read an equal protection component into the state Constitution due process clause.

Remember the argument that permitting gay marriage inevitably permits polygamy? This Judge says 'bring it on':

Defendant’s historical argument is no less conclusory than amici’s tautological argument that same-sex marriage is impossible, because, as a matter of definition, “marriage” means, and has always meant, the legal union of a man and a woman. Further, the premise of that argument is factually wrong; polygamy has been practiced in various places and at various times, for example, in the Territory of Utah. See Davis v. Beason, 133 US 333 (1890); Genesis 29: 21-30; Deuteronomy 21: 10-17.

Says Evangelical Outpost:

I can’t decide which is more ironic: the fact that the judge uses the Bible as a reference source in a making the case for same-sex marriage or that polygamists will use that wording to justify extending marital rights to their own relationships.

I agree with Kevin at Wizbang: This is pure judicial activism. It's the single most irresponsible, extra-judicial ruling I've ever read. The only good news is a 30 day stay in the decision's effective date. Let the appeals begin.

More:

Say Anything disagrees:

We on the right need to let this issue go. Our constitution, the 14th amendment to be exact, guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. Whatever your disposition toward the idea of homosexuality you cannot deny that our laws require equitable application.

I don't agree. First, the decision did not purport to rely on either the 14th Amendment or on "equal protection," though I view those claims as sophistry. But, more importantly, America twice settled similar issues through the democratic process established by the Constitution: slavery (13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) and female suffrage (19th Amendment). What's different here?

Still More:

My middle-ground position on gay marriage is a matter of record. I agree with GayPatriot's summary, which includes:

• I oppose FMA and am disappointed in President Bush in pursuing it. But as Lincoln said, he would rather have kept slavery in order to preserve the union; I think we need to put the gay marriage debate in the context of a nation at war and ask is this really the time to push for it when 2/3 of America opposes it.



• I vehemently oppose using the court system to subvert the will of the people. I disagree with people like Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force who said "basic human rights should never be put up for a vote." That isn't consistent with democracy.

Rather More Schandenfreude

When Ra^therGate first broke, Jonah Goldberg had the killer quote: "Is it possible to die of Schanenfreude?" Well, move over, Jonah: President Bush trumped your ace, according to RatherBiased.

As is traditional, the President hosted top TV news journalists this past Wednesday to preview themes for that evening's State of the Union address. The luncheon was "the first time the outgoing anchor and the president have met since Rather's apology for the [phony Texas Air National Guard] story." It may also be their last encounter, because Rather's retiring on March 9th and has been unofficially banned from interviewing Bush. Rather was silent when Bush answered audience questions.

But the two men did speak, according to Fox's Chris Wallace appearing with Fox anchor Brit Hume:

At the very end as the President left, he asked Mr. Rather whether he was planning to retire to Texas . . . and said that he would be joining Rather in retirement in Texas in four years. But, on the other hand, the President was going off to lead the Free World for the next four.

RatherBiased preserved the Wallace-Hume video here. Alas, the exchange between Bush and the biased Rather wasn't recorded. But I agree with Wizbang's Jay Tea: "I'd sell my immortal soul to see a video of that encounter. . ."

Idiot Famous, Part XX

Janeane Garofalo is an idiot, as MediaResearch.Org shows:

"The inked fingers was disgusting," Air America radio talk show host Janeane Garofalo declared on MSNBC in denouncing Republican lawmakers who, before and after the State of the Union, showed off an inked finger meant to demonstrate solidarity with Iraqi voters who dipped a finger in ink when they voted. To mock the display, Garofalo soon held up her hand in a Nazi salute as she predicted: "The inked fingers and the position of them, which is gonna be a Daily Show photo already, of them signaling in this manner [Nazi salute], as if they have solidarity with the Iraqis who braved physical threats against their lives to vote as if somehow these inked-fingered Republicans have something to do with that."

Click to see Janeane Garofalo comparing Republicans who supported Iraqi voters to Nazis.

Charles Johnson accurately describes this mental midget moment: "Garofalo Hits Bottom, Digs."

More:

Crosswalk, Drumwaster and GOPBloggers demonstrate that the blue finger is the antithesis of Nazi fascism--which should have been apparent even to ill-informed liberals.

If It's Friday, It Must Be Victor

Today's must-read is from Victor Davis Hanson, as it so often is:

[W]e were told that if we dared invade the ancient caliphate, Saddam would kill thousands and exile millions more. And when he was captured in a cesspool, the invective continued during the hard reconstruction that oil, Halliburton, the Jews, the neocons, Richard Perle, and other likely suspects had suckered us into a "quagmire" or was it now "Vietnam redux"? And recall that in response we were supposed to flee, or was it to trisect Iraq? The elections, remember, would not work — or were held too soon or too late. And give the old minotaur Senator Kennedy his due, as he lumbered out on the eve of the Iraqi voting to hector about its failure and call for withdrawal — one last hurrah that might yet rescue the cherished myth that the United States had created another Vietnam and needed his sort of deliverance.

And then there was the parade of heroes who were media upstarts of the hour — the brilliant Hans Blixes, Joe Wilsons, Anonymouses, and Richard Clarkes — who came, wrote their books, did their fawning interviews on 60 Minutes, Nightline, and Larry King, and then faded to become footnotes to our collective pessimism.

Do not dare forget our Hollywood elite. At some point since 9/11, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Whoopi Goldberg, and a host of others have lectured the world that their America is either misled, stupid, evil, or insane, bereft of the wisdom of Hollywood's legions of college drop-outs, recovering bad boys, and self-praised autodidacts.

Remember the twisted logic of the global throng as well: Anyone who quit the CIA was a genius in his renegade prognostication; anyone who stayed was a toady who botched the war. Three- and four-star generals who went on television or ran for office were principled dissidents who "told the truth"; officers in the field who kept quiet and saved Afghanistan and Iraq were "muzzled" careerists. Families of the 9/11 victims who publicly trashed George Bush offered the nation "grassroots" cries of the heart; the far greater number who supported the war on terror were perhaps "warped" by their grief.

There were always the untold "minor" embarrassments that we were to ignore as the slight slips of the "good" people — small details like the multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that came to light due to the reporting of a single brave maverick, Claudia Rosett, or Rathergate, disclosed by "pajama"-clad bloggers without journalism degrees from Columbia, sojourns at the Kennedy School, or internships with the Washington Post. To put it into Animal Farm speak: elite New York Times, CBS News, and PBS good; populist bloggers, talk-radio, and cable news bad.

As I said yesterday, the reality is the reverse: "UN bad, America good--and appreciated outside the Blue state-Euro alliance."

Trifecta

The two headlines of the day seem unrelated, but don't be fooled. It's only been a day since the President's State of the Union address, and already Bush is vindicated. A third event, only hours ago, is the cherry atop the sundae.

1. Syria and Iraq can't handle the truth:

   Syria and Iran on Thursday dismissed as baseless President Bush's attacks on their policies in the Middle East.
   
   In his State of the Union address on Wednesday, Bush accused Syria of letting "terrorists" use Syrian and Lebanese territory to "destroy every chance of peace" in the Middle East.
   
   Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bushra Kanafani said Damascus was doing all it could to stop fighters crossing into Iraq and had offered Baghdad a security agreement.
   
   Washington imposed economic sanctions on Syria in May, citing the Iraq border issue and Syrian support for anti-Israeli Palestinian and Lebanese factions.

   This is, of course, excellent news. Terrorists, and states that harbor and support terrorism, don't fold their tents on our command. But self-protection is no less strong in the Arab world. If Assad and Mubarak woke up more worried today, they're more likely to launch long-overdue democratic and economic reform--which would benefit the citizens of both countries. I'd rather America were loved and feared, but given the choice, I'd rather we were feared.



2. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who chairs the UN's internal investigation of its Oil-for-Palaces scandal, released an Interim Report today, concluding UN corruption trickles down from the top. The report confirms that the head of the UN program, Benon Sevan, received allocations for millions of barrels of Iraqi oil, which he resold for at least $160,000. Volcker also implicated another U.N. official, Joseph Stephanides, chief of the U.N. Sanctions Branch. And it's not just oil, explains Austin Bay:

   [S]oon after taking over as the head of the Iraq Program, Benon Sevan began to strongly support Iraq’s requests for spare parts. More interestingly, the report reveals that two days after the UN Security Council passed a resolution (at Sevan’s urging) allowing Iraq to import spare parts, Sevan flew to Iraq and made the first of several requests for an oil allocation to be directed to a company of his choosing, AMEP.
   
   While Saddam probably would have been able to smuggle some oil out of Iraq with his damaged infrastructure, there can be no question that the huge sums he ultimately pocketed from oil smuggling came as a direct result of Sevan’s campaign to secure permission from the Security Council for Saddam to buy the oil equipment and spare parts that he so desperately needed.
   
   Bottom line: Sevan, director of the Oil for Food program, is directly responsible for the at least some significant portion of the smuggling that ultimately enriched Saddam.

   Secretary General Koffi Annan announced he would impose undisclosed "disciplinary measures" on the two. Sevan claims he's been railroaded for political reasons, forgetting that some scapegoats are, actually, goats. In any event, Sevan retired from the UN and returned to his native Cyprus. I expect Sevan will avoid UN buildings and courts with even arguable jurisdiction--but (schandenfreude moment) perhaps the International Criminal Court will indict him in abstentia.
   
   Shameful joy aside, it's half a loaf. The interim findings focus mostly on Sevan. Volcker still is investigating other UN bureaucrats as well as a French bank still hoarding millions of dollars earmarked for bribes when Saddam fell. And it doesn't discuss Koffi Annan's son, who also allegedly got free voucher bribes--a trail that could end with Koffi himself. I await Volcker version 2.



3. I have terrible secret--I'm addicted to non-sex chat rooms. Silly, but I frequent Yahoo's politics chatrooms, liberal and conservative, seeking inspiration for this blog. The principal user-created conservative room was called "Bush--Brave, Steady & True" (or something like that) until last weekend, when it was renamed "Iraqi Independence Day."
   
   At 6:30 this evening a few of us were explaining the justification for, and success of, the war in Iraq. Three leftists -- one from Canada -- insisted "nation building" was hopeless, costly and immoral. They claimed democracy couldn't be "imposed," especially by force of arms. Ordinary Iraqis, they said, loathed America, and were justified in resisting an unlawful occupation. Of course, none of the lefties ever heard of Iraqi or mil-blogs.
   
   The debate was turning nasty when a new voice took the mic, a woman, with an unfamiliar chatroom ID. In accented and halting speech, she said she was [names and IDs withheld] a 21-year-old college student in Baghdad, a Christian of Armenian descent. She entered Yahoo to thank America for her first opportunity to vote. She stumbled onto our room expecting to find Iraqi-Americans. Instead, she meet 37 Republican-Americans and three belligerent liberals unacquainted with facts.
   
   So we asked her whether Iraqis are disinterested in democracy or resent America. "No, no," she insisted, calling Election Day "joyous." She explained how thankful she was someone toppled Saddam; ordinary Iraqis, she continued, know "there wouldn't be a vote without American troops protecting" them last Sunday. The three liberals promptly attacked her, claiming she was unrepresentative, that she "sounded Jewish, just like the neo-cons in here" [ed.--me? Probably.] and ultimately accused her of being a Mossad agent. She denied it all, and repeated how much she appreciates what America has done--in contrast to what Europe hasn't.
   
   Was she real? It's almost too perfect. But I IMed with her for ten minutes after she left the chat room. Her descriptions seem internally consistent. And I deliberately tested her by describing (without naming) the tricky math/engineering function that converts between the time and frequency domains. My failure to master this technique in college convinced me to change majors. But she promptly said, "oh you mean 'Fourier transforms?'" So, she wasn't lying about the math. And -- after I described myself a Washington, DC, Republican -- she replied, "oh good . . . so you can tell Bush."
   
   I quit the chat room soon after she did. But, before leaving, I went on-mic and said "I think we just pulled Marshall McLuhan from behind a movie poster."

UN bad, America good--and appreciated outside the Blue state-Euro alliance. Blogs, debates and life should always be this simple.

Bush has Balls

To take on Social Security and to continue his defense of global freedom and democracy. I loved the shot across the bow of Syria and Iran. Says Bush opponent Andrew Sullivan, "Once again, the Democrats showed how incredibly lame they are, how vapid their arguments are." Glenn Reynolds blogged my favorite quote:

"The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and to replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom. Our enemies know this, and this is why the terrorist Zarqawi recently declared war on what he called 'the evil principle of democracy.' . . . The advance of freedom will lead to peace."

Gotcher "root causes" approach right here! "Exit strategy," too!

He's spelling out the Bush Doctrine more clearly than he's done before.

No one should doubt four more years of an active, aggressive, George W. Bush. America is uncommonly lucky.

The Day After the Day After

Are liberals barking mad? They recoiled at an Inaugural Address that re-affirmed John Kennedy's support for global freedom and democracy. Though President Clinton proposed to "Save Social Security First," the Senate's top Democrat says Dems will oppose Bush's plan--even though the President hasn't yet finalized a Social Security reform proposal. Such intense Bush hatred makes Democrats less opposition party, more Monty Python argument clinic. Liberals see the world as a never-ending disaster movie ("Tsunami!") of America's doing. With Howard Dean the front-runner to head the DNC, this nation's oldest political organization appears bent on painting itself into the corner of ceaseless irrelevance.

This lunacy is especially apparent in most Dems' opposition to President Bush's war on terror. The "Querulous Party," in Rich Lowry's phrase, is too busy bleating "No WMDs," insisting on announced exit strategies and double-counting un-intentional collateral damage to smell the coffee. So, the Iraqi elections were pronounced a failure before, during and after the balloting. This pre-judgment prompted specious hand-wringing premised on an allegedly un-informed electorate, says Front Page Magazine's Ben Johnson:

[The] objection that political parties had to withhold their candidates’ names (for their own safety) overlooks the fact that Iraqis, like most democracies other than America, voted on a parliamentary system. That is, they did not vote for individuals but for political parties and coalitions, based on the views embodied in their respective platforms – which, as [blogger Ari] Berman pointed out, were widely circulated. Iraqi TV even broadcast a televised debate. So much for ignorance.

Mickey Kaus explains why reporters' rudders are stuck. Using the example of the LA Times' Alissa Rubin, Kaus says the press projects its views onto ordinary Iraqis and thus,

side with the "skeptics" who think the insurgency's strength will prompt Iraqis to readily trade the rule of law and human rights--"the language of democracy"--for security. She's not alone in this (she has Fareed Zakaria, Lawrence Kaplan and, on alternate Thursdays, Andrew Sullivan on her side). But the deeper problem for the Times may not be unleashing such reporters to say what they think; it's the possibility that what Times reporters think may be wrong.

Can Democrats "pull up" before the crash? Columnist Dennis Prager thinks the Dems' decline is irreversible:

There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/ Baathists win.

It brings me no pleasure to describe opponents of the Iraqi war as "worth nothing." I know otherwise fine, decent people who oppose the war. So I sincerely apologize for the insult.

But to the Left in general, as opposed to individually good people who side with the Left, I have no apologies. It is the Left -- in America, in Europe and around the world -- that should do all the apologizing: to the men, women and children of Iraq and elsewhere for not coming to their support against those who would crush them.

Still, a few liberal journalists have seen the light. One is Mark Brown in the Chicago Sun-Times:

[A]fter watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it? . . .

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

Another is David Aaronovitch in the left-wing Guardian (UK):

[A]fter Sunday, we have no more excuses. The elections, so vilified in some quarters, were a revelation. Those anti-war people who could escape their hooks saw millions of ordinary people delighting in the process of voting, and many thousands risking everything (where we would risk nothing) to cast their ballot.

That, now, is all that matters. Not whether you were for or against the war, for or against Blair, for or against Bush. Are you for or against democracy in Iraq? The rest is air.

The late Michael Kelly challenged aging socialists to recognize their mistakes:

At some point it becomes a seriously immoral act to refuse to acknowledge the truth. At some point, you have to ask whether it is morally acceptable to regard those who yet refuse to come to terms with communism other than as people who have chosen to adhere to known evil. And that point has been long passed.

I've no hope for Senator Rum-Blossom of Massachusetts. But surely some Democrats were moved by John Burns' NY Times quote from Falida Saleh, a 37-year old engineer hidden behind a head to toe cloak, "A hundred names on the ballot are better than one, because it means that we are free." For America's sake, I pray the Party nominates one of the later sort in 2008, one whose familarity with freedom is no less sophicated than Ms. Saleh's.

(via Instapundit, Belgravia Dispatch and LGF)

More:

Jonah Goldberg on the the naysayers:

Every setback has been a disaster, proof of a "quagmire" or "imperial hubris." And every success has been greeted by a smug declaration that "this was the easy part" and the "hard part is next." Well, here's some news: It's all been hard. Toppling Hussein was hard. Creating the interim government was hard. Building hospitals, schools, and soccer fields: all hard.

All of the sophisticates and cynics insisted that having elections would be a bloody fool's errand. Bush was being too rigid by holding firm on the January elections. Surely a more reasonable man would postpone them since everyone knows they'll be a bloodbath. And then, once they took place, the goalposts were moved again.

EPA Considers Challenge to Iraqi Election

Iowahawk says it's a possibility:

In another blow to a nation already reeling from months of U.S. occupation, a new World Heath Organization report suggested that Iraqis may face another humanitarian disaster caused by exposure to potentially harmful finger ink during Sunday's nationwide elections.

According to the report, the ink used to mark fingers of as many as 8 million Iraqis contained traces of a chemical, Dimoxycyclene K-phosphate 3, which has been associated with elevated lesions in laboratory animals. . .

Critics noted that the not-yet banned chemical is produced by a RayTel, a Georgia-based firm whose executives contributed over $1800 to the 2004 Bush campaign. Records also show that over 20 gallons of the finger ink was transported to Iraq via Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the controversial firm once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Where's scientist Martin Knudson when you need him?

Surrender Monkeys Surrender

With the Iraqi elections a success, the Weekly World News prints today's vital news from abroad:

In an announcement which is stunning the world, France has decided to change its name permanently to Stinkland.

The French Cabinet's Council of Ministers unanimously voted in favor of the change, which will take effect on Bastille Day, July 14th. . .


(click to enlarge)

Stinkland was just one of several proposed new names, according to Mouffette, who adds that the other names considered were, "Jerry Lewis Land, Hate Americans Land, Coward Land, and Overpriced Small Portion Food Land."

As Howard Cosell said upon the death of Chicago Bears patriarch George Halas, "It was inevitable."

(via Right Wing News)

Groundhog Blog

Tomorrow is Groundhog Day; it's also (approximately) my blog's first anniversary. Let me try to connect the two.

I'll celebrate tomorrow by watching, about the 30th time, the Bill Murray movie of that name. Groundhog Day is my second favorite movie--exiting the theater on first viewing, I said "It's perfect; I wouldn't change a word." I agree with Jonah Goldberg, in the current NR on dead tree, the film is "brilliant as both comedy and moral philosophy." As most will recall, the Murray character relives February 2nd over and over. And the question posed is: "why the day repeats itself and why it stops repeating at the end?"

When Phil Connors arrives in Punxsutawney, he’s a perfect representative of the Seinfeld generation: been-there-done-that. When he first realizes he’s not crazy and that he can, in effect, live forever without consequences — if there’s no tomorrow, how can you be punished? — he indulges his adolescent self. He shoves cigarettes and pastries into his face with no fear of love-handles or lung cancer. “I am not going to play by their rules any longer,” he declares as he goes for a drunk-driving spree. He uses his ability to glean intelligence about the locals to bed women with lies. . .

Still, Conners schemes to bed Rita with the same techniques he used on other women, and fails, time and again. When he realizes that his failures stem not from a lack of information about Rita’s desires but rather from his own basic hollowness, he grows suicidal. Or, some argue, he grows suicidal after learning that all of the material and sexual gratification in the world is not spiritually sustaining. . .

The point is that Connors slowly realizes that what makes life worth living is not what you get from it, but what you put into it. He takes up the piano. He reads poetry — no longer to impress Rita, but for its own sake. He helps the locals in matters great and small, including catching a boy who falls from a tree every day. “You never thank me!” he yells at the fleeing brat. He also discovers that there are some things he cannot change, that he cannot be God. The homeless man whom Connors scorns at the beginning of the film becomes an obsession of his at the end because he dies every Groundhog Day. Calling him “pop” and “dad,” Connors tries to save him but never can.

By the end of the film, Connors is no longer obsessed with bedding Rita. He’s in love with her, without reservation and without hope of his affection being requited. Only in the end, when he completely gives up hope, does he in fact “get” the woman he loves. And with that, with her love, he finally wakes on February 3, the great wheel of life no longer stuck on Groundhog Day. As NR’s own Rick Brookhiser explains it, “The curse is lifted when Bill Murray blesses the day he has just lived. And his reward is that the day is taken from him. Loving life includes loving the fact that it goes.”

I've reinvented myself several times between childhood and middle-age. Geek-to-science-to-law-to-politics-to-writing doesn't have the appeal of "Tinkers-to-Evers-to-Chance" (and might be more strained than the slogan printed under my blogname above), but each new pole-star felt both real and right. Indeed, this blog began with a different URL and focus, but I prefer the new-and-improved.

Blogging is hard work--because thinking and writing take time. Andrew Sullivan, who announced his "hiatus" today, captured the notion:

The ability to keep on top of almost everything on a daily and hourly basis just isn't compatible with the time and space to mull over some difficult issues in a leisurely and deliberate manner. Others might be able to do it. But I've tried and failed.

I'm nowhere near as prolific as Sullivan, but I agree it's exhausting. And blogging is on top of a rewarding personal life and paid employment. How I'd prefer the perspective of pajamas! Alas, contrary to silly CBS spokesmen, work comes first.

I didn't come here to bury my blog; only to say that I've experienced blogging as a Groundhog Day process of self-improvement. My interests have broadened, my writing's better, and my address book -- dangerously slimmed after excising the "blame America first" crowd -- is bigger. I won a Wizbang award and, as a consequence, am too widely read to qualify in that category next year. I've met more people through the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem and Technorati than I thought possible. Readers are what's kept me going. Oh, yeah, and the occasional Insta-lanche or Corner-lanche. . .

No, I'm not quitting. I'll see my shadow tomorrow--locking-in another year of blogging. If my second year's only half as good as the first, I'll be grateful--and better for it. Thanks to you.

(favorite movie provided on request)

JOTD

Q: Do you know why Michael Jackson likes twenty six year olds?

A: Because there's twenty of them.

Lileks Remains on A Roll

His Bleat column is a must read for the third straight day:

Sunday was the day when Americans were watching the Iraqi election, of course. What do you think the Strib’s editorial page had for this weighty day? Well, a lengthy editorial on Ethanol, for those who rise Sunday morn with a healthy appetite for flapjacks, sausages, orange juice and 2000 words on corn subsidies. (“Bold gesture, missed options.” Was ever a more perfect headline for an editorial ever printed?) But the main page had this at the top:

“For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power. What that means for the environment is frightening.”

Well, it depends on your perspective. We all remember how 270,000 people were killed in a day when the environment demonstrated that it had a monopoly of power over plate tectonics.

Below the words, a picture of cracked parched earth, which had once no doubt been green & verdant farmland before the Right Rev. Bush got out his joystick and sent his 900 foot tall Jesus robot to blast the crops with his death-beam laser eyes.

Did I mention that the shadow of a cross falls across the parched land?

You look down the page to see what this might be titled – Meek gesture, seized options? Bold & spicy options, savory gestures? Get this:

THERE IS NO TOMORROW.

We’re on a roll! Ecological catastrophe brought on by “ideology and theology,” with another dull DONG of the catastrophe bell that’s been tolling ever since the Indian cried a famous lone tear over phosphates in the laundry soap. Then comes the cherry on the sundae:

“By Bill Moyers.”

There's more; read it all.

Religion of Peace Update

According to the BBC, even relatively free Kuwait is nuts:

[A]n employee in the Islamic Affairs ministry . . . allegedly bound and blindfolded his daughter, Haifa, knelt her down in front of her two brothers and sister and then cut her throat.

Forensic tests showed Haifa was still a virgin, police sources said. Mr Enezi is being questioned about the case.

And here's the kicker: "Mr Enezi works at the Kuwaiti "Islamic Affairs ministry [and] had just returned from [a] pilgrimage to Mecca."

Imagine how much worse it might have been were Mr. Enezi not so devout.

(via Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)

The Day After

"Yesterday was a great day to be an American, and an even better day to be an Iraqi." That's James Taranto's one-line summary of Sunday's Iraqi vote, and I can't say it better than that. According to The National Review:

The Iraqi people Sunday stuck a finger in the eye of the country's vicious insurgency and its former jackbooted rulers. The finger, of course, was stained in the purple ink that marked participation in Iraq's first meaningful election in 50 years.

Iraqi blogger Omar, at Iraq the Model, described his first experience with democracy:

I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.

I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".

The only possible improvement on the sentiment would have Dame Shirley Bassey belting out a revised version of her 1964 hit in the background, this time called "Blue Finger."


Sons of Iraq (click to enlarge)


Showing off to Fox News (click to enlarge)


Rose of Baghdad, who says "YES, YES, I did it. I have the courage to do it." (click to enlarge)

The Iraqis indeed showed great courage. Which is more than can be said for leftists, especially in America. It's impossible to escape the conclusion that liberals wanted the Iraqi elections to fail. Senator Kopechne (D-Mass), of course, said America was not winning in Iraq only last week--insultingly bad timing according to Jonah Goldberg. John Kerry qualified every sentence with a bushel of "buts." And even a day later, the left remains churlishly silent. One gets the feeling they would oppose sunshine if President Bush praised the light. Even the Arab press was more positive than most Democrats or European media. And the New York Times gets a special dis-honorable mention for steadily increasing the gloom dripping from their coverage during the day--the paper surreptitiously and incrementally flushed Iraqi joy down the memory hole.

Fortunately, James Lileks preserved that joy in amber:

I’m just glad I’m stupid enough to be hopeful. I’m glad I’m naive enough to suspect Iraqis actually wanted to vote. I’m very glad I’m not so aslosh with solipsistic hatred that any success in Iraq makes me trot out a cynical riposte so the rest of my buddies on Olympus will nod in wry assent. I’m glad that a picture of a mother holding her daughter to cast the ballot reminds me that this is number two in a series. All other things aside – which is a difficult thing to posit, I know – I’m glad to be on the side of holding elections. In the end I’m glad to be glad. And now I will go skip through the daisies and sing happy songs about bunnies, because I am obviously a fool. What was the cover story of the Village Voice I saw in the library today? “Bush’s plan to destroy the world.” Destroy it some more, George.

Cartoonist Chris Muir also "got it":


Day-By-Day January 30th (click to enlarge)

And the election's outcome already is clear:

The world won't know for a week or longer which candidates won yesterday's historic Iraq elections, but we already know the losers: The insurgents. The millions of Iraqis who defied threats and suicide bombers to cast a ballot yesterday showed once and for all that the killers do not represent some broad "nationalist" resistance. . .

Now that Iraqis have voted, the new line among American critics of the Iraq war is that "elections are not democracy." Well, elections may not be sufficient for democracy but they are necessary. Everyone knows that struggle and compromises lie ahead if the new Iraq is going to succeed. But yesterday's demonstration of courage and hope by millions of Iraqis belies those cynics who say Arabs and Muslims don't want democracy.

The Iraqi people agree, says Mohammed at Iraq the Model:

What happened yesterday was an extremely significant turning point that will leave its marks on the future of the region.

The world stood astounded at the sight of the masses that challenged death yesterday to plant the seed of hope in those boxes and now the enemies of the change cannot deny all that; the people have said their word clear and loud in their purple finger revolution.

Why was the world surprised? And what were the motivations of the people who have never experienced democracy before?

There were so many misconceptions about Iraq and these were the reasons why viewers from outside as well as many Iraqis were surprised. In the past few months, the media have played a big role in reflecting a blurred image about the will and preparations of Iraqis to hold the elections, not to mention exaggerating the size of the "militant groups" and their capabilities.

And Chrenkoff's round-up of Iraq news appropriately reflects the tremendous progress to date.

Still, expect leftist carping to continue, both whining about the turn-out (whatever the percentage) and "goal-post shifting," already spotted by John Cole and Iraqi legal advisor Ryan. And everyone knows why liberals will take that line: because the gratitude of ordinary Iraqis and the pictures of polling place lines were made possible by President Bush's commitment to spreading democracy:

Sunday was . . . a day of vindication for President Bush. How many times now has he been told by the press, the Europeans, and other doubters that something can't be done, and simply forged ahead and done it? His determination to see the election through in the teeth of calls for its delay, and his faith that Iraqis would make a strong civic statement in favor of a better Iraq, were both shown to be courageous and far-sighted.

Indeed, yesterdays vote burnished Bush's policies, according to the new mayor of Baghdad, sworn in hours after terrorists assassinated his predecessor:

[H]e is not worried about his ties to Washington. In fact, he'd like to erect a monument to honor President Bush in the middle of the city.

"We will build a statue for Bush," said Ali Fadel, the former provincial council chairman. "He is the symbol of freedom."

Such altruistic American ideals are exactly what drive today's stay-at-home Democrats crazy.

To hell with the naysayers. Let freedom ring. In America as well as Arabia.

More:

According to Dan Darling at Winds of Change:

Zarqawi suffered an unqualified defeat today - one that he is not likely to soon recover from. Not only did he fail at his purported desire to derail the Iraqi vote, but he was unable to carry out anything resembling the kind of operations that his group has mounted in the past in either the Kurdish or the Shi'ite areas of the country. This was literally his "make or break" moment in the eyes of the al-Qaeda leadership and goes to show just how limited the insurgency is to a single geographic area of the country.

Darling's four word summary: "Zarqawi Gambled - and Lost."

Sing it Frankie

Mildly ribald, Sinatra battles the terrorists, courtesy of Howard Stern.

Democracy, Not Quagmire

Everyone knows the war in Iraq's a quagmire. The media says so. Ted Kennedy says so. Europe says so. So it must be true, right?

Wrong again. The fact that Iraqis are at this moment holding their first free and fair election should be a sufficient rebuttal. The fact the terrorists oppose freedom and democracy, preferring theocracy, clarifies the stakes. Forget Europe--they're hardly neutral, having been bribed to become Saddam's poodles. As for Ted Kennedy's erroneous, blustery despair, he might more profitably focus on self improvement, as Iowa Hawk savagely, but accurately, suggests.

And, most importantly, the mainstream media lies: by phoning-in stories from "mahogany ridge" (i.e., some bar safely within the Baghdad "green zone"), by unverified statistics or by collaborating with our terrorist enemies:

• As milblog Blackfive previously reported:

  [M]any members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms -- how convenient.

• The relative isolation of the press makes the media dependant on unsourced information, which could be wrong or misleading. For example, the BBC yesterday apologized and retracted its previous assertion that U.S. and Iraqi police forces caused 60 percent of Iraqi civilian deaths over the last six years. Seems they had "misinterpreted" the data--doubtlessly because they wrote first, investigated later.



• As The Belmont Club demonstrates, the press collaborates with terrorists. Worse still, as shown by Obsidian Order and The Adventures of Chester (follow-up here), the media falsely reports and photographs staged demonstrations as if they were terrorist bombings.

For years, the Iraq broadcasts became anti-American bias, often through the "Damning But." This is repeated on a daily basis without source or support. Meantime, the press missed the real story: for the first time in the Arab world, the people are speaking--that's called democracy. As Brent Rasmussen says:

Regardless of one's political inclination, irrespective of your confidence in the electoral process employed, or the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, no matter what the outcome, let us all stand united in our admiration for those courageous Iraqi's who will brave gunfire, RPGs, bombs, and reprisal, to determine their own fate? For they choose to do so in bold defiance of promised violence and certain intimidation.

(via Instapundit and LGF)