The Leaves are Falling...
Autumn seems to last forever here, but I wanted to get some pictures before it disappeared:
 |  |
 |  |
Sunday, October 31, 2004
A dew-covered morning
This morning I took some pictures of the cattail-like tips of some grasses growing in our yard:
 |  |
 |  |
Everything but the moat
Last Sunday, I built this fort that we got from a famliy through Freecycle. It took a few hours to assemble, but at least we put it together during the day (when I took it apart at the "donor family"'s house, it was at night after work). We added some additional railings, a steering wheel, and hooks for an infant swing.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Campaign 2004: High Stakes
A great article from Paul Johnson. Here are some highlights:
The great issue in the 2004 election—it seems to me as an Englishman—is, How seriously does the United States take its role as a world leader, and how far will it make sacrifices, and risk unpopularity, to discharge this duty with success and honor? In short, this is an election of the greatest significance, for Americans and all the rest of us. It will redefine what kind of a country the United States is, and how far the rest of the world can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our civilization.
I don’t recall any occasion, certainly not since the age of FDR, when so much partisan election material has been produced by intellectuals of the Left, not only in the United States but in Europe, especially in Britain, France, and Germany. These intellectuals—many of them with long and lugubrious records of supporting lost left-wing causes, from the Soviet empire to Castro’s aggressive adventures in Africa, and who have in their time backed Mengistu in Ethiopia, Qaddafi in Libya, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua—seem to have a personal hatred of Bush that defies rational analysis. Anti-Americanism has seldom been stronger in Continental Europe, and Bush seems to personify in his simple, uncomplicated self all the things these people most hate about America—precisely because he is so American. Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a mental disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending leadership.
All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit—politically, financially, and emotionally—from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.
I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively.
The great issue in the 2004 election—it seems to me as an Englishman—is, How seriously does the United States take its role as a world leader, and how far will it make sacrifices, and risk unpopularity, to discharge this duty with success and honor? In short, this is an election of the greatest significance, for Americans and all the rest of us. It will redefine what kind of a country the United States is, and how far the rest of the world can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our civilization.
I don’t recall any occasion, certainly not since the age of FDR, when so much partisan election material has been produced by intellectuals of the Left, not only in the United States but in Europe, especially in Britain, France, and Germany. These intellectuals—many of them with long and lugubrious records of supporting lost left-wing causes, from the Soviet empire to Castro’s aggressive adventures in Africa, and who have in their time backed Mengistu in Ethiopia, Qaddafi in Libya, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua—seem to have a personal hatred of Bush that defies rational analysis. Anti-Americanism has seldom been stronger in Continental Europe, and Bush seems to personify in his simple, uncomplicated self all the things these people most hate about America—precisely because he is so American. Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a mental disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending leadership.
All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit—politically, financially, and emotionally—from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.
I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Monday, October 25, 2004
Friday, October 22, 2004
For the love of the French
Charles Krauthammer explains how Arafat-endorsed John Kerry plans to woo the French and the rest of "Old Europe" into liking us again.
Its simple, really.
Just turn our backs on Israel.
Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?
The answer is obvious: Israel.
In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places like Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.
Read the article.
Perhaps that's why America’s largest Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Press, has endorsed George Bush for President. Here are some highlights:
The choice Americans must make on November 2 should be an easy one. One can prattle about the significance of this or that difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry on the environment, Social Security, jobs, taxes and a whole slew of other domestic issues. But that avenue ineluctably ends up as a clash of partisan talking points about inherently insoluble problems. When it comes, however, to the war on terror — the overarching issue of our time — the choice of Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry is a clear one from everything available in the public record. And for those with a special interest in Israel, the choice is even clearer.
Senator Kerry has spoken of former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker — both blatantly anti-Israel — as his choice for emissaries to the Middle East. He has also retained as advisers many of Bill Clinton’s discredited Oslo architects and others who have urged moral equivalence between the murder of Israeli women and children and Israel’s reaction to terror.
To our mind, based on their own statements, the imperative of responding to the worldwide terrorist threat, and the particular targeting of Israel, the choice this year is George W. Bush over John F. Kerry.
And this is not even to address Mr. Kerry’s shameful creating, out of whole cloth, politically motivated scares over a reinstatement of the military draft and a reduction in Social Security benefits. Mr. Kerry’s assertions are totally without foundation, and they put his credibility further into question. He should be ashamed of himself.
All things considered, we all will be better off with George W. Bush as president for the next four years.
Personally, I think Protest Warrior has the right idea.
Update: "He [Kerry] would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel." -Richard Holbrooke, foreign policy spokesman for the Kerry Campaign.
Read the article.
Its simple, really.
Just turn our backs on Israel.
Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?
The answer is obvious: Israel.
In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places like Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.
Read the article.
Perhaps that's why America’s largest Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Press, has endorsed George Bush for President. Here are some highlights:
The choice Americans must make on November 2 should be an easy one. One can prattle about the significance of this or that difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry on the environment, Social Security, jobs, taxes and a whole slew of other domestic issues. But that avenue ineluctably ends up as a clash of partisan talking points about inherently insoluble problems. When it comes, however, to the war on terror — the overarching issue of our time — the choice of Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry is a clear one from everything available in the public record. And for those with a special interest in Israel, the choice is even clearer.
Senator Kerry has spoken of former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker — both blatantly anti-Israel — as his choice for emissaries to the Middle East. He has also retained as advisers many of Bill Clinton’s discredited Oslo architects and others who have urged moral equivalence between the murder of Israeli women and children and Israel’s reaction to terror.
To our mind, based on their own statements, the imperative of responding to the worldwide terrorist threat, and the particular targeting of Israel, the choice this year is George W. Bush over John F. Kerry.
And this is not even to address Mr. Kerry’s shameful creating, out of whole cloth, politically motivated scares over a reinstatement of the military draft and a reduction in Social Security benefits. Mr. Kerry’s assertions are totally without foundation, and they put his credibility further into question. He should be ashamed of himself.
All things considered, we all will be better off with George W. Bush as president for the next four years.
Personally, I think Protest Warrior has the right idea.
Update: "He [Kerry] would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel." -Richard Holbrooke, foreign policy spokesman for the Kerry Campaign.
Read the article.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Monday, October 18, 2004
Need I say more?
Are American Jews still caught up in their vote-for-democrats-no-matter-what reflex?
Yasser Arafat certainly hopes so. After all, Kerry is much more pro-Palestinian than Bush. Yasser Arafat endorses Kerry.
Yasser Arafat certainly hopes so. After all, Kerry is much more pro-Palestinian than Bush. Yasser Arafat endorses Kerry.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Back from Kutshers
We spent Chol Hamoed Sukkos up at Kutshers. You can read all about our trip on the Journeys and Adventures page.