The Central American Free Trade Agreement, which has now passed the House and Senate (meaning it is law, we all know Bush doesn't veto),

The agreement eliminates tariffs on U.S. exports to Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. It also locks in and expands the duty-free access those countries already have to the U.S. market.

This is good news, as free trade helps to expand political and economic freedom in the countries involved, not to mention better the national economies of those involved in the long run. The biggest gains will be in textiles, where US-CA produced goods will be better able to compete against China.

I've always said that free markets are better for all those involved, and any "job-loss" supposedly from CAFTA would most likely happen in the next 5-10 years anyway. This is the biggest change in US-CA relations since the Roosevelt Corrollary. This would also be a perfect excuse to get some anti-illegal immigration legislation on the block.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:55 PM | Permalink | |

This is interesting:

WASHINGTON — Usama bin Laden tried to buy a massive amount of cocaine, spike it with poison and sell it in the United States, hoping to kill thousands of Americans one year after the Sept. 11 attacks, The Post has learned.

The evil plot failed when the Colombian drug lords bin Laden approached decided it would be bad for their business — and, possibly, for their own health, according to law-enforcement sources familiar with the Drug Enforcement Administration's (search) probe of the aborted transaction.

One side effect (besides US retaliation) the cartels were worried about was the literal poisoning of the cocaine market. This also proves that bin Laden wants to attack all Americans.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:48 AM | Permalink | |

I am one of the few people I know to get excited over fiscal policy. I have exactly zero dollars invested anywhere besides my material possessions, yet I know that today's fiscal policy determines, to a large degree, the state of the nation in the future. Being in the "next generation," the fiscal policy of today has me worried sick.

Tax and spend liberals want to increase taxes and increase benefits. Makes sense. Got it.

Like many whom I would call fiscal conservatives, I love the idea of low taxes, and I love the idea of reducing government benefits. I understand that when taxes go down, and benefits go up, two things happen. One, we go into debt, two someone has to pay for the debt now, and eventually the taxpayers do too. Welcome to the current fiscal policy. Or lack there of.

The Republicans are in power and they've left the government conservatives behind!

I lean more libertarian than most Republicans, though I am far too moderate for the Libertarian Party. I would rather see Congress ensuring our fiscal future than regulating morals, because if the economy collapses, it doesn't really matter what two guys are doing in a bedroom, does it? Rather than the fiscally conservative (or at least fiscally responsible) policy I would hope for with a GOP majority, we get tax cuts and more spending. The pork is flowing, and the deficit, while it seems to be shrinking as far as estimates go, shows no signs of slowing down.

I'm not opposed to government spending, but government waste? Should not exist as a phrase in the common vernacular.

The New Deal tried to help people make their lives better. From LBJ on, the people have expected government to make their lives better.

Look for an upcoming post on who owns our debt.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:47 PM | Permalink | |

WASHINGTON -- The House Friday overwhelmingly endorsed President Bush's vision to send man back to the moon and eventually on to Mars as it passed a bill to set NASA policy for the next two years.

This also seems to include the CEV (Shuttle replacement) and Hubble repair.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:12 PM | Permalink | |

So I was reading Allies yesterday, which details Chirac's and Saddam's buddy relationship, among other things, and then it dawned on me. France is responsible for every war the US has been involved in since 1900 (except Korea and the War on Terror). We bailed them out in World Wars I & II, they started Vietnam, and they helped Saddam so that he could invade Kuwait in 1991.

Has it been worth it? I don't think so.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:49 AM | Permalink | |

Followed by a couple stumbes. The pinnacle achievement, at least from a glamour perspective (as we've probably learned more with the Shuttle) in manned spaced flight, landing on the moon, first occured thirty-six years ago today. Google has a fitting tribute.

Rand Simberg:

Unfortunately, while many at the time believed that this was just the beginning of many such explorations, ones that would establish bases on the moon, and send humans beyond, to Mars and perhaps other places (the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey had been released the year before, featuring a rotating space station in low earth orbit, a Pan Am space transport to reach it, a lunar base, and manned mission to Jupiter all occurring in that seemingly distant year), the program was already ending. The goal had never really been to open up space, so much as to win a race against the Soviets, to demonstrate our technological superiority, as a proxy battle in the Cold War between democracy and totalitarianism (sadly, it wasn't viewed as a war between capitalism and socialism, else we might have taken a more promising approach). But with the knowledge that we were winning that race, and the budget pressures of Johnson's Great Society and the Vietnam war, the decision had been made years before to end procurement of long lead items necessary to advance much beyond a few trips to the lunar surface.

Only six missions would actually be successfully performed (Apollo XIII didn't get to the moon), with the last one just three-and-a-half years later, in December of 1972. Some of the leftover hardware would go toward the Skylab program in 1974, and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, whose thirtieth anniversary occurred just a few days ago. After that, there were no flights into space by Americans until 1981, when the first Shuttle flight occurred--a six-year hiatus.

We now stand at another critical crossroads in human spaceflight. It seems that the shuttle will be grounded untel at least September, after a long hiatus due to tragedy. I seriously doubt whether it will fly into space ever again. NASA needs to help those trying to reach the final frontier by not inhibiting, but encouraging private citizens and companies who wish to do so. The Shuttle is outdated and ineffecient. The most effeicient, durable cars on the road today are made by private companies. Why shouldn't space vehicles be the same? I want to be beamed up.

RIP James Doohan, 1920-2005

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:29 PM | Permalink | |

As with so many other really big political stories, I find it hard to write something wholly original after reading something that captures my thoughts perfectly.

John Roberts is who you get when the President finally nominates the "best qualified" candidate. I mean truly best qualified as measured by college and law school degrees (both Harvard), grades (summa, Harvard; Magna, Harvard Law School), clerkships (Friendly, Rehquist), post law school job (Chief Deputy SG), big prestigious law firm job. He is widely reputed to be considered by the Justices themselves as among the very best Supreme Court oral advocates around today. And no one dislikes him.

But what sort of Justice will Judge Roberts make? I have no idea. I have never met him, so all I have to go on is his public record--a record of enormous accomplishment. But so far as I know, we know nothing about what he stands for apart from the fact that he is undoubtedly politically conservative. Is he an originalist? We don't know. Is he a majoritarian conservative like Robert Bork? We don't know. Would he find any limits on the enumerated powers of Congress? We don't know. Would he have ruled with the majority in Kelo? We don't know.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:21 PM | Permalink | |

What would be different today were John F. Kerry President? In my opinion, very little.

We would still be in Iraq, Congress would still be setting it's non-agenda.
No Social Security Reform. No Tax Reform. Under Bush? We have neither.
Because of the decisive Congressional majority, Kerry would get nothing done. He may have more vetoes then Bush, but that would be about it. Unless Kerry screwed up, then it would be Jimmy Carter II: Iraqi Boogaloo.

This makes me wonder why I worked so hard for Bush to win.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:40 PM | Permalink | |

This is silly. I don't condone this sort of stuff at all, no matter what side of the aisle the offender may be on.

I myself do not play especially violent videogames, more of choice than anything else, but I do not oppose people who make or play these games. I do firmly believe that children should not play them, but as it is with most material considered innapproproate for children, it is the parent's responsibility, and not the government's to regulate this (except in extreme cases, i.e. pornography). The current videogame rating system (similar to those for films), is a great guideline for parents. It is of course, their perogative, for bettter or worse, to do so.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:46 PM | Permalink | |

My home state, and the one I technically reside in, has been hit hard (job-wise) by base closings. Currently on the BARC chopping block is Willow Grove, which is used by the PA Air National Guard. Now, NIMBY stands, no Senator or Governor wants a base closing in their state.

However, Gov. Rendell (D), and GOP Sens. Santorum and Spector are using an interesting tactic:

nvoking the "militia clause" of the U.S. Constitution to prevent de-activation of the national guard's 111th Fighter Wing at the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, names Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a defendant. It claims that federal law prohibits the changing, relocation or withdrawal of a National Guard unit without the approval of the governor of the state in which the unit is located.

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

So "The Secret Man" has been revealed, but I am not wasting $23.00 (or $15.64) on Woodwards book that he had so long to write. A mere 249 pages, I was surprised in person when the book itself was so tiny, and the print so large. Now, after catching up on my Bloggermann, I realized that 'Deep Throat' was a bigger cover up then Watergate.

There is also insight to the parallel irony of Woodward’s end of the Hunt For Throat — that Woodward, who made his bones unraveling a cover-up, later has to protect both himself and his source with a stonewall that would’ve made Richard Nixon applaud. In the early ’80s, Woodward writes (p 149-151) that when he was metropolitan editor for the Post, one of his columnists, Richard Cohen, came to him and revealed he was convinced Felt was Deep Throat, and intended to write about it. Woodward says he first “discouraged” Cohen, then said he had to protect his source, then “misled him,” then tried his best to “steer him away.”

Finally, when Cohen insists that the initials Woodward used internally at the paper to identify Throat (M.F. - for ‘My Friend’) and Mark Felt’s initials were no coincidence, Woodward throws the niceties overboard. “It’s not him, I said, adopting the well-tested Watergate strategy that when all else fails, lie. I lied, and insisted to Cohen that he had it wrong… A real, safe truth between friends, I indicated, suggesting that I was helping him from writing something monumentally stupid. Cohen didn’t do the column. I felt bad, but it had been an easy decision.”

It seems that Woodward became the thing he most hated.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:19 PM | Permalink | |

Through all of this, we must remember the victims of terrorism around the world, especially those who have been murdered by Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.
The U.S.S. Cole, 9-1http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.quote.gif
insert blockquote1, 3-11, 7-7. Never Forget.

To me, this attack on London during the G-8 will do a couple of things.
1. Increase support in the US for Bush
2. Increase closeness of UK & US
3. Give Bush and Blair more leverage at the G-8 (Chirac very weak now)

The reason for this, obviously, is UK support for the US. These attacks will not damage that, but make it stronger. Britons are not easily scared, and they will not crumble like the Italians or the Spainards. The War On Terror will continue as long as the terrorists and those who harbor them are able to carry out acts of senseless violence.

Some things from 'round the 'sphere:
James S. Robbins:

The London bombings are likely part of a wider al Qaeda summer offensive. A letter attributed to Osama bin Laden addressed to the Muslim community (ummah) surfaced in Pakistan on June 20, stating that he was "preparing for the next round of jihad." He wrote that "we want to give good news to the Muslim ummah that, with the blessings of Almighty Allah, we have been successful in reorganizing ourselves and are going to launch a jihadi program that is absolutely in accordance with the changed situation." He stated that new recruits were ready, and that they were armed with the weapons of the enemy (no indication what that means exactly). He also threatened the rulers of Muslim countries who have not signed onto his program (which is all of them, at least publicly). More foreign fighters have appeared and are active in Afghanistan and diplomats from Muslim countries are being systematically targeted in Iraq.

The Belmont Club:

Just a few comments in the aftermath of the attack on London. The first and most important hard fact to grasp is that this Al Qaeda strike, their first against an Anglosphere city since 9/11, has caused much less damage than that on New York. This despite the fact that Al Qaeda has had nearly four years to brood on its humiliations and losses and to plot its revenge. The reasons for this are simple: the enemy is now operating in a much more hostile environment. The accessible methods of mass destruction, such as wide body aircraft, have been secured; not perfectly, but for a defense to work it must only be sufficient to blunt the onslaught of the enemy.

The Blue State Conservatives:

The nations of Europe need to realize that their open immigration policies are creating a foot hold for Islamic Terror right in their backyards. While we are trying to stamp out the flames of Islamic terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places, new fronts are cropping up all over Europe. While NATO troops are having a firefight with the Taliban in the rugged wasteland of Afghanistan because of the hate and violence their ideology spreads, a Imam in London, Paris or Stockholm is delivering the same message. Only this message is partially-subsidized by the government. Many Muslims come to Europe to take advantage of the generous welfare options given to even recent immigrants.

Would Churchill allow a Nazi recruiting center to operate openly in England during WWII? Of course not. And we shouldn't allow it now either. It is time to take a hard line in Europe. Crack down on the radical mosques, tighten immigration policies and take away their incentive to migrate by reforming their welfare state (which they need to do for economic reasons anyway).

The problem is that most nations in Europe will blame this attack on Tony Blair's decision to help with the removal of Saddam. They will going about their business safe in their minds that their policies of retreat in the face of the terror threat will keep them safe. Of course, they can't or won't realize that radical Islamists declared war on the west well before George Bush was even President and it will continue even if we removed every western soldier from the entire Middle East.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:53 PM | Permalink | |

I am ticked off at Dr. Frist, Denny Hastert, and the rest of the Republican leadership. They were elected to cut spending, reduce taxes, and get the Bush Agenda passed. They have failed on the first and third accounts.

They have out spent the tax and spend liberals, and have let the Bush Agenda crumble even with a decisive majority in both Houses. This is frustrating, and shows that the GOP does not know how to govern as a majority party. Rather than govern the people with what they promised, they continue to funnel the pork through. Forgive me for being a "true believer," but I vote Republican because I believe that if government is inolved in people's lives, it should help people make themselves better, not give handouts.

It is time for a new Contract With America. Dr. Frist, are you listening?

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:53 PM | Permalink | |

Now that she has resigned, there may be some pressure to find a woman to replace her, thus keeping the Supreme Court balanced, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg being hedged by a right-leaning woman. Well the perfect candidate has been found: Ann Coulter!

She is constitutional scholar with a J.D. from a respectable law school. That's more than most of our Justices have had, historically.

I'm serious.

Either they confirm her, or they raise hell. Assuming they raise hell enough to block the nomination, anyone else Bush puts up as a replacement looks moderate by comparison. Then, he can name someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and the opposition will have to give in, since the replacement will be soooooo much better than Ann Coulter.

Sounds like a plan. And that would make for some fun C-SPAN.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:09 AM | Permalink | |