I just returned from the Student Publications School by the Leadership Institute.

A large update will be around late afternoon tomorrow.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:54 PM | Permalink | |

I'm leaving today for a training program by the Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA. I have no idea if I'll have internet, so don't expect anything until Tuesday.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:28 PM | Permalink | |

Powerline has this today, somthing I'm very excited about:

"Haider Ajina passes along a translation of an article in the Arabic newspaper Alsharq Alausat, with the results of a poll conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning:

72.4 % of all of those polled said they would participate in the elections. [Ed.: If so, Iraqi voting will vastly outstrip participation here in the U.S., where 56% of eligible voters contributed to a record turnout in 2004.]
97% of Iraqis in Kurdistan said they would participate in the elections.
96% of Iraqis in the southern provinces (mainly Shiite areas) said they would participate in the elections.
33% of Iraqis in the central provinces (Sunni Area) said they would participate in the elections.
10% of Iraqis in Central provinces (Sunni Area) said they have not yet made their mind if they were going to vote or not.
62.1% of those polled said that the elections will be neutral and free.
17.8% said elections will not be neutral and free.
66% said that the elections must take place under current circumstances.
53.3% said the security is good in their area..
21.7% said that security was average in their area.
25% said that security was bad in their area.


Interesting: 75% of Iraqis say security where they live is either "good" or "average." Not exactly the impression you would get from the American press.
My own prediction, for what it's worth, is that we'll see a stunning turnout of Iraqis next week, easily surpassing our own electoral participation and dealing a decisive rebuke to the anti-democratic forces of Islamic terrorism."

I agree. I think the election on January 30th is going to be a rousing sucess.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:13 AM | Permalink | |

As I have noted in the middle of this post, I enjoyed CNN's Crossfire, at least when the right people were on. To me, almost nothing tops Carlson and Carville going at each other, bowtie against Gator. Finally, TVNewser points out someone who agrees with me, and not with Jon Stewart, who really started this whole fiasco.

Michael Kinsley sums it up nicely in his last paragrpah, saying that "Crossfire didn't cause ideological divisions in this country. It reflected them." Check it out.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:21 PM | Permalink | |

According to USA Today, the 2,000 more Border Patrol agents that Bush signed the bill for will not fit in the budget. Bush will not ask for the extra money to fund these Border Patrol agents, who are a major part of Homeland Security, securing our borders from illegal immigrants, and from possible terrorists, including members of al Qaeda, crossing into America via the Canadian or Mexican borders.

I understand that illegal labor is a part of the economy of the Southwest, but installing a tough "Working Pass" program isn't enough to stop terror. Once that plan is in place (which Bush has not pushed for in Congress yet), tougher Border Patrols are required, to keep the people we don't want in, out. Remote control cameras and such will help, but not if there aren't enough agents to catch the people found by cameras.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:10 PM | Permalink | |

The University's formal respnosne.

Another theory.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:02 PM | Permalink | |

Austin Bay, (found via Instapundit) has a warning to the next few Presidential Administration, be they Democrat or Republican:


"The re-election of George W. Bush bodes well for peace in 2020. A John Kerry victory would have cost us an additional two years of blood, toil, sweat, and tears -—the two years it would take the Kerry Administration to discover that the Bush Administration’s strategy in the War on Terror is the right one.
However, the linked threat posed by theo-fascist terrorism, petty despots, and the proliferation of weapons of capable of killing innocents by the millions remains the Hell Forumla for the 21st century.
Like it or not, the bitter task of breaking our planet’s Hell Formula falls on the American people, led by American presidents a decade after Bush leaves office.
Is it a complex task? Of course— we’re fighting history’s most intricate war. Is it a hateful and odious task? I’ve thought so from the get go. I didn’t like the burden of the Cold War falling on America either, though Poles and Hungarians I served with in Iraq last summer thank Americans in the most reverential terms for standing up to the terror of the Soviet empire.
Is the task shirkable, deflectable, rejectable, add-any-word-you-want-that-suggests-letting-it-slide?
The answer: an unequivocal NO."

Wise words, methinks.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:40 PM | Permalink | |

(From GOPBloggers)

"Magnetic Yellow Ribbons that say "Support The Troops" have been surreptitiously banned by the administration at the University of Oregon.
The origin of the policy was a complaint from a fellow employee and the claim was that the sticker was in fact a "political statement".
The employee who had the magnetic ribbons had put them on his vehicle months previous - but Friday a university employee complained.
So let's review...
1. University employees at the University of Oregon are not allowed to support the troops who defend those employees' freedoms and the security they live under.
2. "Supporting the troops" is deemed a political statement...so much for the "We all support the troops" talking points.
3. Even if this WAS political expression - university employees are not allowed to express themselves politically? (Can Instapundit weigh in on the legalities of University Campus political expression?)
Since when did the Bill of Rights have to undergo perusal and permission of the Administration of the University of Oregon?"

This is an insane violation of Free Speech. I fail to see how supporting the troops is a political statement. I know plently of (smarter) liberals who realize they can support the troops without having to support the war. I also fail to see how the University has a right to do this in the fist place. It is a shame, and I hope this ban gets overturned, and not spread to other liberal bastions. I bet that if it was a "Make Peace Not War," or an anti-Bush sticker, it would still be on that man's vehicle.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:15 PM | Permalink | |

THE EAGLES ARE GOING TO THE SUPER BOWL!!! TWENTY FOUR YEARS OF WAITING PAID OFF! (Eighteen for me, or 12 if you count since I've been actively following football).

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:59 PM | Permalink | |

Though it is ridiculously early for this, I want to run down a list of who I think will be in the running in 2008, on both sides, as it will be wide open. Possibly for a future "I told you so" moment. This project brought to you by insomnia and the number 8.

The Republicans: The Republicans need to build the momentum they have with George W.'s reelection, but it all matters about the feelings coming out of midterms in 2006., and how much of the Hispanic vote they can draw.

Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist - The current Senate Majority leader certainly has the experience needed to be President, but does he have a chance? After all, the last person to go from the Senate Floor to the Oval Office was JFK. It certainly hindered John Kerry. Personally, I like "The Senate's Only Doctor," but he has been in the Senate ten years, and is near 50, so if he doesn't make a run for it now, as a "younger" candidate, I doubt he'll have this good of a chance later. However, if he did make a bid, and didn't get it, the price paid in dignity would be high. His Senate position hurts him, so I don't think he will get the nomination. However, if he becomes instrumental in getting a popular Bush social security plan or tax simplification through the Senate, his odds improve.

Rudy Giuliani - "America's mayor," the man who was the bright spot of 9/11. Rumors say he could be making a bid for Hillary's Senate seat, or the NY Governor's office after Pataki, but the man has the national name-recongnition that few could ever hope for. However, as I discoverd while helping out a candidate running for State Congress in Delaware, who had probably met everybody in his urban district, and lost (becuase he was a Republican, that's Willmington for you), name recognition isn't everything. For one, he is too moderate for the base, and that coupled with his messy divorce, may bar him the nomination by the conservative base, the people who show up on primary day. However, he is a shoe-in pick for the Vice President-slot come 2008, as long as the top spot isn't filled by someone from New England.

Gov. Jeb Bush - Jeb really doesn't have any negatives, as far as I've found, unless you consider being the brother of the President a negative, and in a way, they are. While I think the current Florida governor could easily get the nomination in a weaker field, and could quite possibly nab it in the powerhouse field we're expecting. However, with America facing the possibility of three of the last four Presidents being a Bush, adding up to sixteen of the last twenty-four years (at the end of what would be Jeb's first term), I don't think it's viable. I think should the GOP lose in 2008, Jeb would be a great challenger to the Dem in 2012.

Tom Ridge - Hasn't done enough. While I think he may be able to nab the Vice position, if only becuase of the Homeland Security experience, and the fact that Pennsylvania went blue by only a little bit in the past two elections, the man just doesn't really posess the charisma, or the charm he needs to connect to the voters. If he gets the nom, it would be a tough battle.

Sen. Rick Santorum - Of any Republican currently in the Senate (including Dick Cheney), I think he has what it would take to get both the nomination and the presidency. Santorum is currently 46 (making him 50 in 2008), and still the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, and will be until Spector dies, I assume. He's already been in the Sentate 10 years as of 2005, and needs to jump ship if he ever wants to be more than a Senator (in most cases, a long career in DC legislature nixes any hope of of a career anywhere else in politics except K Street), he'll leave soon. He's number 3 in the Senate leadership, and is up for relection in 2006, most likely up against popular State Treasuerer Bob Casey, who is a pro-life Democrat, an election he may lose becuase of Philadelphia solid-Dem bias.

Dick Cheney - It will never happen. Too many don't like him, he has too many heart problems. A zero factor unless he endorses someone.

Sen. John McCain - It will never happen. Too many people don't like him in the base for him to get nominated, and somewhat of a rogue, and still has that Senatorial drawback, but could easily snag the Vice Presidential slot. Call him the anti-Edwards.

Gov. Schwarzenegger - I hope not. The party of the conservatives repealing a part of the Constitution to let him run? It's too strange to believe. He may have high approval ratings in California, but it is the left-coast. Things just operate differently out there, explaining how he got elected in the first place. If he does end up getting the nomination somehow, I may vote for Pat Buchannan, as that is something sure to get him fired up enough to run.

Gov. Pataki - He's not the most popular Republican from New York. At this point, chances are nil, but we'll see.

The Wild Cards: Either of these two entering the race changes everything.

Newt Gingrich - He has a new book out, (which I don't have the money for right now...and my birthday is coming up), which seems to indicate to me he wants something to do with the GOP in the future. He has declined that he wants to run, merely that he wants to influence those who are running. Doesn't sound like the Newt we know and love. Seems to want to update his "non-compassionate conservative" values for the post-9/11 era.

Condoleeza Rice - She has the experience, arguably more foreign policy experience than any president since John Adams, and certainly the most since Eisenhower. She's also black, and a woman. Is America, let alone the GOP, ready for a black woman President? Either one would raise the question, but both? It would be an interesting ride, and her chances rest on Bush's second term.

The Democrats: I'm certainly not the most well-qualified for this, as I know my party better than my opponents, especially since we're calling the shots, but I'll give it "the old college try." The Democrats are a party in crisis. They need to figure out whether they want to continue to drift to the left, or move back to center.

Sen. Hillary Clinton - Since everyone else assumes she has the experience, I will too. After defeat at thier own hands in both 2000 and 2004, the Democrats are scrambling for a leader. A face of the party. Is it Howard Dean? John Kerry? Howard Kucinich? [That last one would be a riot --Ed.] Hillary has too many negatives, Whitewater, her husband, tainted for at least the next decade by the Monica thing, and well, comedian Jeff Foxworthy puts it best: "If you can't say anything nice about a person, you must be talking about Hillary Clinton." I honestly cannot picture Hillary running for President, but rather becoming the "new" Ted "Quagmire" Kennedy.

Howard Dean - He promises to not run in 2008 if he gets the DNC Chair. The Democrats are still furious over the "scream" incident. Had Dean ran his campaign the way he governed Vermont, he would have had the Democratic nomination, and a better shot than Kerry ever had at the Presidency. He's not going away, but his liberal scare tactics better if he plans to stay.

Sen. John Kerry - Snowball's chance in hell. Reid should kick him out of the Senate for not showing up.

Sen. Barack Obama - If I was in charge of picking the DNC nominee, and the convention was tomorrow, I'd pick Obama. He doesn't have any of that "old stodgy" Democrat smell yet, he's a moderate on many things, conservative on some, liberal on others. In other words, he did what Kerry failed to do. He believes what he believes, and yet everyone has something they agree with him on. He's not rich, he's not old, and he's smarter than most of his fellow Democrats.

Gov. Ed Rendell - A non-factor. He is not really the Governor of Pennsylvania, but the Governor of Philadelphia, elected by the Philadelphians before they realized how much he messed up thier city, becuase Philadelphia and it's suburbs have enough votes to sway any statewide election. Yet they'll probably vote to re-elect him too. Why? I have yet to figure that out, and except for my recent start at University of Delaware, I have lived in Phildelphia my entire life. Hasn't done enough to warrent a Presidential run, though I was hoping Kerry had picked him for the VP, if only so that we could be rid of him.

Sen. John Edwards - May be damaged goods. Unless he proves he is more than just a pretty face, I doubt he will be much of a player, unless he becomes the best of a poor pool of candidates, like his running mate.

Gov. Bill Richardson - He could have beat Bush in 2004. He could have pushed even John Kerry to victory (possibly). Don't believe me? Go read this short bio, and learn why he scares me. He's Obama in 10 years, meaning with experience. If he keeps doing good, the nomination is his.

The Tickets:
This is the part where I make my dream ticket (for the GOP), and my most-feared (for the DNC).

GOP: Santorum-Giuliani or Rice-Giuliani

DNC: Richardson-Obama or (more likely, and unfortunate for the DNC) Clinton-Edwards

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:38 AM | Permalink | |

The New York Sun has an update on a film I hope makes it to theaters, and desperately wsh to get screened on my campus [Just hope they haven't seen it --Ed]. Anyway, this article features a little background on the man some are calling "The Conservative Michael Moore."

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:06 PM | Permalink | |

I don't know why the Brits care so much, it's not like we went on for a week when the royal Family does something stupid. Still, there's malice here showing that the average newspaper in Britian is New York TImes quality.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:06 AM | Permalink | |

So are Neo-Cons? The New Democrat thinks so. It's an interesting theory, and I know Bush isn't the most conservative Republican (especially fiscally), I don't buy it. But I'll let you decide for yourself.

I think it's more that fact of something he actually hits on. Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 are the intellectual decendants of Truman and Kennedy, men who I think would be Republicans today. All part of the Republican Realighnment during the latter part of the last century.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:00 AM | Permalink | |

As I alluded to earlier, the Democrats need a new star. Is it Obama? Glenn Reynolds thinks so.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:17 PM | Permalink | |

A snowball hit the Vice President's limo today during the parade. Remember, we did throw snowballs at Santa, someone else not adored by the loony left.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:14 PM | Permalink | |

Yes, every post I make about Canada will have "Eh" at the end. Otherwise you wouldn't know what I'm talking aboot. OK, enough with the Canadian-trashing (for now).

Anyway, remember back in November, when a bunch of liberals threatened to emmigrate to Canada becuase of Bush winning? FoxNews.com has an update:

Canadian officials say they did note an uptick in interest among Americans seeking to relocate, as evidenced by tracking numbers on Canada's immigration Web site.
On Nov. 2, the site received 86,937 page visits, a hefty surge from the previous daily average of 20,000. The next day, Nov. 3, the number of inquiries from the United States alone skyrocketed to 115,628.

The site had "a spike," said Maria Iadinardi, a spokeswoman for Canada's Citizen and Immigration Department. "For the month of November, we hit a record high for the year."
But due to the lengthy application process, Canadian embassy officials said they won't know until April if a substantial number of Americans put their passports where their mouths were.

There's a lot more to the article itself, but that was the higlight for me. I, for one, agree with Michelle Malkin, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out," said the syndicated columnist, nobody is forced to live in America. Rather than complain and talk about leaving, "go for it," she said. "It goes back to the old saying, 'Love it or leave it.' Clearly, they don't love it." Anyone who truely doesn't want to actively halp America should just leave. Really. Even when the Clinton Impeachment was happening, I was still proud to be an American. Get over it, or leave.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:16 PM | Permalink | |

Powerline has a great post up commenting on the Republican realignment. According to Professor Andrew Busch, the era of Democratic domination forged in the New Deal came to an end in 1968, with the election of Richard Nixon, rather then popular belief of 1980 and the Reagan Revolution.

"Given this picture, it is not unreasonable to ask again whether we are in the midst of a Republican realignment. To begin with, one can conduct the simple exercise of comparing today's Republican dominance of governmental institutions with, say, the situation in early 1968, when Democrats controlled the presidency, both houses of Congress, and an overwhelming majority of state legislatures. Clearly, something fundamental has changed. Contrary to Democratic hopes, 1968 and 1980 were not flukes; 1994 was not a fluke; and now, for the first time, Republicans have put together the full package.

Democrats in 1964 saw an endless horizon of victory stretching out before them. Only now can we see that the New Deal alignment had actually reached its peak and was on the verge of a steep descent. That descent was, to some extent, unsurprising. The coalition was aging, new strains were developing, and most of the coalition's policy agenda had been achieved. On the other hand, there was nothing inevitable about the Democrats' collapse. On a pyre formed by Vietnam, the Great Society's overambitious schemes, the embrace of the counterculture and left-wing isolationism in 1972, and dozens of controversial court decisions openly celebrated by liberals, the Democrats slowly immolated themselves. Meanwhile, an energized and organized conservative movement was preparing to come to power."

He likens the Democrats of the 1960's to the Republicans in 2004. A massive victory, the promise of a "generation of dominance" by Karl Rove, who likens 2000 to 1900, a marginal victory that gave way to dominance. Honestly, if the DNC does not get out of it's identity-crisis-funk that it is in right now, where people like Barbara Boxer can represent the party, rather than somelike like, yes it pains me to say it, Sen. Joe Biden. As much as I personally disagree with the man, he is a good spokeman for the DNC, as well as fellow Sen. Joe Leiberman. These are (normally) rational voices who have been drowned out by the likes of Michael Moore, Ted "Quagmire" Kennedy, and Howard Dean at his most firery. The DNC needs the former Governor of Vermont to return to his moderate state soon, if he wishes to bring his image out the ashes of the "Dean Scream."

As I've said before, a good Democratic Party makes the Republican Party on it's toes. America's two-party system has worked since the early 1800's. I hope it stays that way.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:35 PM | Permalink | |

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:34 PM | Permalink | |

I think I may take a break today, unless something really interesting happens, or I decide to post much later tonight.

Happy Inauguration to President George W. Bush!

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:15 AM | Permalink | |

The team that brought you Blogs for Bush has now opened GOPBloggers, and I am one of the members listed at the start. Though I am home in Pennsylvania right now, I live University of Delaware full-time, and thus I have listed my location as such.

Congrats to the GOPBloggers team, and I can't wait for all the GOP news and ideas surging into the blogosphere.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:13 AM | Permalink | |

Not sure what the implications are, but Instapundit has the dirty details.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:06 AM | Permalink | |

The Vice President talked with Brit Hume about Social Security, Condi's confirmation, and other domestic issues. The highlights:

Cheney on the Democratic opposition in Congress:

"Clearly the way our system is designed, we have a majority party and a
minority party and you expect to have healthy debates and the loyal opposition
is part of that responsibility. I think, though, when you cross over the line
where you're simply opposing for the sake of opposition, when you become an
obstructionist, as many people thought Tom Daschle did in the last Congress,
minority leader in the Senate, then sooner or later, the voters may, in fact,
repay that at the polls in a sense that they want to see two parties work
together. They understand that there are differences and different approaches to
problems. But in the end, I think they want to see progress and see results and
I would be hopeful that that's the case.

We don't expect, obviously, to
get unanimity out of the Congress. We do expect the Democrats to be tough
adversaries. That's altogether fitting and proper. But in the end, on the issues
the president wants to address, the big issues like Social Security, for
example, and tax reform, those are big, important issues that I don't think the
Democrats can get away with simply saying, well, we don't have an answer or we
don't think it's a problem. I think they'll have to engage."

On Condi's hearings:

"I thought it was fundamentally unfair. I thought, frankly, that criticism
at this level wasn't justified. I think Condi has done a superb job as the
national security adviser. I think she'll make a great secretary of state. "

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:28 PM | Permalink | |

The Air Force is finally getting into near-space, which is designated at 65, 000 feet+, but below outer space orbit.

The Air Force is actively exploring ways to use helium-filled free-floating balloons and remotely controlled glider-like aircraft to protect U.S. convoys, track friendly forces, assess battle damage and boost communications between units in military hot spots like Iraq.

This will be interesting, as automation makes for 0 pilot casualties, but I'm not sure how a 65,000+ foot view of Iraq could help change tactics in street-level fighting, unless the cameras are very high powered. Still, bringing the battle to a new height (pun intended) is always good, especially when we're up there alone. As long as this doesn't start a Space Race with the Chinese (not that would be horrible, but we unprepared), it should be fine.

Another demonstration of something known as the "Near Space Maneuvering
Vehicle," is planned for this month or next in Oregon, an Air Force spokesman
said. The Air Force could start using near-space aircraft to relay communications within the next year, but it could take up to a decade to develop other aircraft that would take on more sophisticated missions such as surveillance, Leaf said.

Leaf said the Air Force was evaluating about 10 different concepts for aircraft that could be used for surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance and perhaps to augment a fleet of Global Positioning Satellites orbiting the Earth.

He also said the Air Force had no plans to put weapons aboard these aircraft.

"There is a lot of excitement in the military, and the Air Force in particular, about near space and the potential it offers," Leaf said from his office at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado.

"This is not a passing fad or fancy," he said, although he
acknowledged that industry faced significant challenges in developing materials
that could withstand extreme ultraviolet radiation in the outer reaches of
Earth's atmosphere.

This should make the USAF's next decade very interesting. Props to my girlfriend for passing along the CNN story.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:41 PM | Permalink | |

John Kerry and fellow loony lefty Barbara Boxer, were the only two dissenting votes against the obviously qualified Condoleeza Rice. Was it really a vote against Rice? Or a "revenge" against the man being sworn in tomorrow?

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:01 PM | Permalink | |

Here's a link to every book I've mentioned on this blog (at least recently).

Thanks to the Weblog Bookwatch.


Behold the power of the internet.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:37 PM | Permalink | |

From YoungPundit, who pulled the quote from MSNBC, which is Sen. Joe Biden aying something that I agree with:

"I have one simple message: Get over it. Get over it. President Bush is
our president for the next four years. So get over it and start to act in your
interest, Europe." -- Democratic Senator Joe Biden's blunt advice for European
critics

Sign of the apocalypse #457.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:23 PM | Permalink | |

Apparently the Huygens probe landed in mud on Titan, hopefully it won't muck up the cameras or the equipment.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:35 PM | Permalink | |

No, Howard Stern is not getting a second show, but Jerry Springer is. The liberal TV show host of the show who's audio track gets more bleeps than an episode of Cops is now on the radio in Cincinnati. This just heats up whispering of his return to politics, but I feel that he has massacred his reputation with the horrible display of white trash he calls television. Rush and Hannity need not worry.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:09 PM | Permalink | |

He wants Hillary vs. Condi in '08.

Me too.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:23 AM | Permalink | |

Title says it all. Click on it.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:39 PM | Permalink | |

The Pentagon is saying the aforementioned reports about the expansion of the War On Terror into Iran are untrue. Doesn't mean they aren't happening, and we don't know about it. Ohh, a conspiracy theory. The Pentagon claims the story is based on false information.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:40 PM | Permalink | |

"The New Deomcrat, Saving the Party from the Looney Left" is a new blog that is encouraging, becuase a stronger Democratic Party makes for a stronger Republican Party. The Democrats have a choice now, they can return to thier centrist roots, or keep voyaging to the far, far left. I'm obviously not going to agree with most of it, but it is quite refreshing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:30 PM | Permalink | |

In a gross overraction to the Prince Harry debacle, the enitre EU may "ban" swastikas. Not sure on how they would enforce that one, but it seems to me that it really isn't a solution. The real solution here is education. I think that Harry doesn't fully comprehend the impact of the Holocaust. Nice to the EU acting on this one, unlike Iran, or Oil-For-Food, or Kofi Annan, the list goes on.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:12 PM | Permalink | |

As one swayed by the President himself to support this Amendment, I feel especially hurt by this, articulated best for my sake by the folks at Redstate.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:52 PM | Permalink | |

The Huygens probe is turning into a big success for the European Space Administration (ESA), and pictures are starting to tricke out of Titan's surface. Some pics in this Space.com article, and some more pics here, including mosaic-ed and simulated colored pics.

Also: One of the only "serious" discussions of ET's I've seen in a while.

This may be the start of a new trend: Sunday night Space-bloggging!

Cue the lightning strikes and evil laughter.

Or, alternately, themes from one of the following: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Twighlight Zone, or if you must, Star Trek.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:22 PM | Permalink | |

The New Yorker seems to think so (via Reuters).

If we are to be speculating where the next "campaign" in the War On Terror is going to be, I'd put my pool money into the Syria camp. If we did attack Iran, it would probably be a low-key Special Ops Tom Clancy-commando type stuff or perhaps closer to the Afghanistan operation, or major air strikes, like Kosovo, and how the Israelis nuetralized the Iraq nuclear program in 1981.

What seems to be a decent briefing on Iran nuclear air strikes, from GlobalSecurity.org.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:41 PM | Permalink | |

Once again, the Mainstream Media (MSM), via Tim Russert and Meet the Press, has provided a way for partisan hackery to remain unchallenged. The recently promoted Dan Bartlett gave a not-so-stellar performance this morning, dodging the exact details in a manner necessary, but yet very necessary to the way the Bush Administration operates, by "not debating with itself on television." Details to Social Security reform were not given, becuase they haven't been established. But Russert's persistent questioning still makes Bartlett look bad.

After Bartlett was former Clinton guy Rahm Emanuel, whom Russert allowed to spout partisan hackery unopposed, like giving Clinton credit for the Republican balanced budget, and attacking Bush's deficit spending during a recession, caused by 9-11, which I have been told that is basic economic theory.

Say what you will about Crossfire, but at least hackery as a back-and-forth provides a two-sided argument.

More on this when the trasncript is up.

Meanwhile, my own thoughts on Social Security reform. As much as I would like to eliminate this program outright, I know it will never happen, and this plague FDR left on the federal government will outlive even myself. I do propose some reforms so obvious they have probably been overlooked. Personally for a change to the system, I like what has been said so far about private accounts. I like having control of my money. One reform: take social security away from the people who don't need it. For example, anyone who makes over $1 million dollars a year should still have to pay social security tax, but not recieve benefits. Simple as that. Is it unfair? Sure it is, but with their Bush tax cuts made permanent, they're still paying less. People like Bill Gates and Steve Forbes don't need to collect Social Security, but probably will. It's a small elimination, but every little but helps.

Stephen Moore's thoughs (via YoungPundit):

1. Social Security reform saves money. It doesn't cost
money. The creation of private investment accounts is said to cost $2 trillion,
but they save $10 trillion in later years. Wouldn't most Americans invest $2 now
to get $10 back in 20 years?

2. Attack the attackers. Ever since Paul Krugman of the
New York Times wrote that Social Security isn't broken, this has become the
rallying cry of the left. But every independent analysis finds the opposite. The
system will crater when the baby boomers retire fully. Even the Social Security
Administration's actuaries see a future of doom and gloom if reform isn't
undertaken.

3. Expose Democrats' desire to raise taxes. If benefits
are not cut, and private accounts are not created, the only other option is to
raise taxes on workers in the future to cover gigantic funding shortfalls. The
option of doing nothing now, really means raising taxes a lot, later.

4. Stop all talk of benefit cuts in the future. Trimming
Social Security benefits in the future risks an enormous political backlash
against the GOP. The truth is that personal accounts for Social Security will
allow Americans to have higher, not lower retirement benefits. Cutting Social
Security benefits to get private accounts is like "paying for tax cuts" with
other tax hikes.

5. Make the accounts big and meaningful. Big accounts will
accumulate large amounts of dollars quickly. These large accounts thus help
lower the long-term funding problem because workers will no longer need to draw
on promised benefits.

6. Stress private ownership and control. The issue of
Social Security is not so much about financial viability as it is about who
should control the money? The worker or the government? Private accounts empower
workers with control of their own money. That is a powerful free market
concept.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:07 PM | Permalink | |

I was down at school visiting my girlfriend, and meeting with some people about a new conservative group I'm helping to start, and a conservative newspaper as well. More on that later.

UPDATE: This is what I want to do. From the WSJ. MUST READ.

A funny Q&A about blogs for those in the dark.

Good thing we already have the Support Our Troops bracelets. Though I think SAVE (the conservative group I was talking about) might get some Count Me Red ones in the future.

This blog is by a friend of mine.

While I was away, I read all of State of Fear by Michael Crichton. An Amazing book. Top Notch, and one of Crichton's best. It picks up in Crichton's style in what he failed to do with his previous effort, Prey, and actually create a bona fide page turner. He debunks every arguement in the book about global warming, and reveals though actual data and sources how much belief goes into this "theory." I recommend it for anyone who has every enjoyed a Crichton or Dan Brown novel, or even anyone who is at all concerned with global warming. You will learn, and you will be entertained. Five stars out of Five.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:39 PM | Permalink | |

While I was walking today, I made up some alternate lyrics for the Green Day song 'American Idiot' off the album of the same title. The original song (lyrics) is not exactly to my liking. I think I fixed it. Enjoy.

Just wanna be an American man,
Not listening to the liberal media
And can you hear al-Jazeera?
Drowned out by patriots, America

Welcome to a great nation,
All about patroitism
Not something that needs to change
Hannity, Rush and Glenn Beck
They're the ones who'll tell you like it is
Think about it, will you?

Red states all over the map
Not part of the Moore agenda
Don't listen to his propoganda,
Moore really hates America.

Welcome to a great nation,
All about patriotism
Not something that needs to change
Hannity, Rush, and Glenn Beck
They're the ones who'll tell you like it is
Think about it will you?

Just wanna be an American man
Not listening to the liberal media
Can you hear Al Franken?
Drowned out b