The title comes from F. A. Hayek's seminal work (I highly recommend it), and is an argument against government dependency, something that the Conservatives (and little "c" too) in Canada are dealing with. A new book is out about Canada's inner conservative, and it is drawing a lot interest, especially with the election now:

That Canada is by nature a happily statist country is a myth that has been propagated by the Liberals for over 40 years, according to Kheiriddin and Daifallah. Canada, they note, was founded by explorers, adventurers and capitalists. It became a culture of dependency over time. But, says Kheiriddin, "cultures of dependency can be reversed." As a case in point, she singles out Great Britain, on the socialist track for years, but rerouted under the robust leadership of Margaret Thatcher.

I definstely understand how they feel here:

Once, Kheiriddin described herself as a "conservative activist" to a new acquaintance. He laughed, she recalls, because "Well, you don't usually think of activists as conservative." That perception must change, Kheiriddin and Daifallah insist.

Conservatives here must draw on the foundations of Goldwater and Reagan, and rediscover our economic soul, one which believes in markets over government, and individuals over institutions.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:34 AM | Permalink | |

This is a followup to last Friday's Hero/Hack on Wal-Mart. From the Washington Post, but I found it at Cafe Hayek:

wal-Mart's critics allege that the retailer is bad for poor Americans. This claim is backward: As Jason Furman of New York University puts it, Wal-Mart is "a progressive success story." Furman advised John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry in the 2004 campaign and has never received any payment from Wal-Mart; he is no corporate apologist. But he points out that Wal-Mart's discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. The savings are possibly five times that much if you count all of Wal-Mart's products.

These gains are especially important to poor and moderate-income families. The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart's "every day low prices" make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart's $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs. Those programs are better targeted at the needy, but they are dramatically smaller. Food stamps were worth $33 billion in 2005, and the earned-income tax credit was worth $40 billion.

And who says private companies were not as good as government?

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:29 AM | Permalink | |

Enviromental action needs to merge with economic growth, not against it. This is something Bush needs to listen to Tony Blair on.

Science, however, can never prescribe a policy choice; it can just lay out policy options. But the more we learn about the climate, the more it is clear that our knowledge is just scratching the surface. The National Research Council, for instance, last year issued a complex but fascinating report that spelled out that we know very little about the various "forcings" on our climate system beyond the effect of greenhouse gases. It also pointed out that the global temperature metric may not be the best signal as to what is going on with the climate. If the scientific discovery process can be likened to a police investigation, then focusing policy attention on greenhouse gases is akin to finding a murder victim in a house with a broken window and picking up a usual suspect whose modus operandi involves breaking windows. Unwise though it may seem to those who are convinced they've got the right man, much more investigation is needed.

Just as it is becoming increasingly clear that mankind cannot fine tune the climate system it is also becoming clear that the Kyoto-style policy solution of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by means of binding targets is just as simple-minded. The vast majority of countries, recognizing the link between energy use and economic growth, have rejected any binding targets on them. Most of the countries that have accepted targets are now looking increasingly unlikely to meet them. The few countries that are likely to meet their targets are mostly Eastern European nations that have done it the old-fashioned way, by economic collapse. The United Kingdom, which had a huge head-start in emissions reduction since the benchmark date of 1990 thanks to Margaret Thatcher's victory over the coal mining unions, has seen itself knocked off course not just to meet its self-imposed target of additional emissions reductions but even its Kyoto obligations themselves.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:01 AM | Permalink | |

Last night, I watched the vote to bring down the scandal-ridden Martin government north of the border.

Now the campaign begins, and the election is January 23rd. As you may have noticed, I am currently reading a book on Stpehen Harper, who, should the Conservatives come out ahead, will become Prime Minister, which would be good for the Canadians, but also for Washington.

Canada’s Conservatives, by contrast, are seen as much more receptive to improving relations with Washington, though a majority of Canadians opposed the war in Iraq and the policies of President Bush.

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper favors tax cuts and opposed Martin’s successful bill to legalize same-sex marriage throughout Canada. He would become prime minister if the Conservatives receive the most seats in Parliament.

“This is not just the end of a tired, directionless, scandal-plagued government,” Harper said after Monday’s vote. “It’s the start of a bright new future for this country.”(emphasis added)

I am predicting a minority-Conservative government, but anything could happen during the campaign season.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:08 AM | Permalink | |

The Air Force, not too long after transparent aluminum, has unveiled a phaser:

While only in prototype form and years away from fielding, the weapon, known as the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response (PHaSR) system, holds great promise, they said.

The PHaSR is about the same size and weight of a fully loaded M60 machine gun - around 9 kg - but shoots a low-power beam of laser light instead of bullets. The light it generates is capable of temporarily impairing an individual's vision, much like the disorienting glare one sees when looking into the sun, said the officials.

Upon completion of testing, one prototype will be handed over to the Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) and the second to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ): the law enforcement arm of the US Department of Justice. Both organisations support the programme, with the latter interested in its civil applications.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:01 AM | Permalink | |

Originally, this post was to be about term limits, advantages and disadvantages, and why I am leaning towards three four-year terms for the House, and two six-year terms for the Senate. To the general analysis, this would allow for greater accountability, and moreover, decrease the influence of "special interests." However, in taking my class on Congress, I would argue that you can support that incumbents serve their constituents best, which is how they remain in thier jobs.

In thinking about this, it led me to thinking that this would not solve one of my major complaints, and that is the short-sightedness of democratic bodies. Take the example of Katrina. It was in New Orleans' best interest to have a fail-proof plan should a major hurricane deal a blow to the city. As we saw, the plan that was in place was not great, nor was it followed. Disater preparedness is expensive and only semi-tangible, and so it rarely gets done properly. This is also probably one of the root causes behind our inability to stop 9/11, and why people want to pull out of Iraq.

Some other issues where short-term interest beat out long-term benefit: worldwide free trade, Social Security Reform, Tax Reform, budget deficits, the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Issues where the long-term won: the American Revolution, waiting for the Lord of the Rings movies, the Cold War, (Iraq).

I can't think of a way to change the short-term outlook without giving an enormous amount of power to government and bureaucrats, whom I don't trust. Any ideas?

UPDATE (6:02PM): John Fund points out some bad enviromental policy, which fits this perfectly.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:28 PM | Permalink | |

The tide may slowly be turning in the War on Terror, and only al Qaeda and Zarqawi can take credit for it. The Economist:

In Amman, al-Qaeda's victims included not only Mr Akkad and his daughter Rima, a mother of two, but also dozens of guests at a Palestinian wedding. The slaughter of so many innocents, nearly all of them Sunni Muslims, in the heart of a peaceful Arab capital, inspired a region-wide wave of revulsion. Far from being perceived now as a sort of Muslim Braveheart, the man who planned the attack, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, may be the most reviled person in Jordan, the country of his birth. His own tribe, which had previously taken some pride in its association with the Iraqi resistance, has publicly disowned him. Tens of thousands of Jordanians have taken to the streets of Amman to denounce terrorism. Opinion polls, which had previously shown Jordanians to be at best ambivalent about jihadist violence, now show overwhelming distaste for it (see tables).

Similar changes in attitude have overtaken other Arab societies. Some 150,000 Moroccans marched in Casablanca earlier this month to protest against al-Qaeda's threat to kill two junior Moroccan diplomats kidnapped on the road to Baghdad. The execution by Mr Zarqawi's men of two Algerian diplomats and the Egyptian chargé d'affaires in Iraq earlier this year aroused similar indignation in their home countries. Two years of bloody jihadist attacks in Saudi Arabia have rudely shaken the once-considerable sympathy for radical Islamism in the conservative kingdom. A top Saudi security source reckons that 80% of the country's success in staunching violence is due to such shifts in public feeling, and only 20% to police work.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:18 AM | Permalink | |

No, I'm not talking about Prince Harry's Nazi costume, or Michael Moore's Goebbels-like propoganda machine, or Hillary Clinton being remarkably similar to C-3PO. I'm talking about the PolitaKid.

He has a new weekly feature, Highlight and Lowlight, which he describes as "a cheap rip-off of Jokers to The Right's Hero/Hack feature."

I am flattered, and I'm sure my AP Government & Politics teacher will be too.

Past Hero/Hacks

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:51 PM | Permalink | |

Wal-Mart is both the hero and hack this week.

First the bad news: They simply did not have enough of the sale items in stock this morning. I know, because I saw this on the news, and people who came into my store after going to Wal-Mart were complaining about it. On a side note, I officially have equated retail with the word complain. They are now synomous in my brain (A quick survey of my parents, who have both worked retail in the past, confirms my suspicions. On a side note, anyone who absolutely has to have an XBOX360 and did not preorder it deserves not to have it. There are always shortages. Learn from past behavior. The XBOX360 debacle is not the fault of Wal-Mart or any other retailer, however, they should have had more of those $200 computers, if onyl because it gives people access who may have not had it before.

The hero side of Wal-Mart: They had a computer for $200! This is providing access to technology that was not possible for people to previously experience in the lower-income range. The second is just for not being evil. Tucker has more thoughts on this, and I agree.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:07 PM | Permalink | |

Blogging is going to be light over the next few days, as I take a well-deserved Thanksgiving break.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:29 PM | Permalink | |

Forty-two years ago today, John F. Kennedy was assasinated.

Gary the Ex-Donkey has an excellent post on what JFK meant to the Democratic Party:

What the F**K happened to the Democratic party that I once proudly belonged to? What the hell has become of the party of Kennedy, Truman and FDR? They have been taken over by people who belong to the a generation that followed Kennedy. By a bunch of self-centered, narcissistic, spoiled assholes who were given everything and have given back nothing. By a bunch of pricks who lived their lives focused on getting high and getting off with no sense of personal responsibility.

I don't mean to paint this whole generation with a broad stroke. There are plenty among them who served their country, who hold dearly the principles on which this country was founded and who raised their children to appreciate the value of the freedoms we all take so much for granted.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:07 PM | Permalink | |

Abu Ali confessed shortly after his arrest at a Medina, Saudi Arabia, university in June 2003 that he joined al-Qaida and discussed various terrorist plots, including a plan to personally assassinate Bush and to establish himself as a leader of an al-Qaida cell in the United States.

Almost got'em.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:08 PM | Permalink | |

Here at University of Delaware, there are 6 main places to get a meal. The 4 sub-par dining halls (Pencader, Rodney, Russell, and Kent), and the two student centers (Trabant and Perkins).

The student centers each have a food-court atmosphere, and Trabant has brands like Quiznos and Taco Bell. However, when one becomes poor (usually in the last month of the semester, as summer savings dwindle), using the campus meal plan is cheap, as the meals are essentially paid for and so, students like me end up eating at the dining halls way too much.

So the other day, while I wonder why "Vegetarian Sloppy Joes" are a main selection at Kent once a week, it dawned on me. The dining halls are a monopolistic cartel. They can get away with serving low quality Aramark slop via undertrained staff because they have no competition. Where else am I going to go to get food I can afford? Right now, not many places.

There is a new, but separate "Off Campus Meal Plan" that allows you (or your parents basically) to pre-purchase meals to be used on Main Street. However, the plan is basically a ripoff, and not everywhere participates.

I can't show my displeasure by not participating in the school's meal plan, as it is required while living in the dorms. As long as this remains in place, there will never be any increase in quality in the dining halls because there is no threat to their revenue. Granted, I don't know where the profit margins for the dining halls are, but I do know that Pencader had Cream of Broccoli soup six days last week.

Basically, I am not complaining about the overall quality of the food. Certainly better than what we had in high school. However, I am merely seeking to understand why the quality rests where it does, and possible solutions.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:39 PM | Permalink | |

Reports came in last night that coalition forces may have killed Zarqawi. We will know the truth to that over the coming days, but:
"His days are numbered. He is going to be ultimately found," says Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.

And news from Afghanistan from StrategyPage:

The Taliban has attracted additional money, and suicide bombers, from Arabia. Two years ago, most of this support shifted to Iraq, where al Qaeda believed it had a better chance of winning some kind of victory. But too many Arab terrorist resources in Iraq produced nothing, and Iraqis have become very hostile to al Qaeda as a result of all the Iraqis killed by terrorist attacks. So now, efforts are shifting to Afghanistan. However, this is also a hostile environment for Arab terrorists. This goes back to the late 1990s, and used a brigade of al Qaeda gunmen to keep unruly tribes in line. Most of the al Qaeda enforcers were Arabs, who did not hide their disdain for the "primitive" Afghans. This has not been forgotten. Moreover, Arabs stand out more in Afghanistan, where most Afghans are European or Central Asian in appearance (the majority of Afghans belong to ethnic groups related to the ones that overran Europe thousands of years ago.) Afghans have been quick to turn in suspicious Arabs, or any suspected terrorist activities.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:36 PM | Permalink | |

Mike McKain asked me to "clarify a bit by what you mean when you say "climate change" is a doctrine of faith?"I have been doing a fair bit of reading on it, and highly recommend The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan, which I will review sometime this week. In it, Brian Fagan details the effects of the climate swings in Europe specifically between 1300 and 1850.

The main point of cention with global warming theory is whether or not humans are causing it, and how much the Earth is going to warm. Computer models are usually used to demonstrate this, and a model is only as good as the one programing it. There is no doubt that the Earth is warming, the question is by how much, what can we do about it, and should we do anything?

From 1900-1939, the temperature began to rise dramatically, fully coming out from the Little Ice Age range. However, by the 1950s, the temperature receeded in one of the longest recorded downward swings, as human beings were using more and more fossil fuels. The winter of 1971/72 was the coldest European winter in 200 years. A new Ice Age was predicted. What was the cause of this? The North Atlantic Osciliation (NAO) (Fagan, 207-8). (NAO Wikipedia article). In short, the NAO governs climate in the Northern Hemisphere, similarly to El Nino. The current state of the NAO, causing warm winters in North America and Europe, has remained this way since the 1960s, well outside the normal variation. Why is unknown, and no definative answer has been reached (Fagan 213).

The short answer is that we don't know how serious this warming is, which is why I call it a religious doctrine. The effect of CO2 is widely debated, with the only agreed upon factor to warming (besides the NAO) is the sun. Solar activity is at an 8,000 year high, and this may account for at least part of the Earth's warming.

The second aspect to global warming is the politicization of science. Ignoring the media, the politicization starts with the scientists themselves. "Exsisting scientific evidence does not support the call for urgent action and the conventional wisdom concerning climate science is based on a false notion of scientific consensus" (Bate). Probably the easiest place to see the manipulation of data to make change appear more dramatic is historical world temperatures, as measured my thermometers, ice cores, and tree rings.

A common presentation (Earth Policy Institute):


Notice how this graph starts in 1880, which is a historically cold period. If the same graph shows a time begining in the year 1000, as well as showing temperature departures from the 1961-1990 average, rather than the actual temperatures, thus demonstrating the actual change in temperature over time, the change is less dramatic (World Cimate Report):


The third aspect is what we chose to do about global warming, the most popular option by the Greens would be treaties like Kyoto. The good news is that Kyoto does work. A little. For a huge cost:

It has become clear that Kyoto's costs are excessively high and its benefits, in terms of net climate cooling, infinitesimal. Cost estimates for the first round of Kyoto, from now till 2012, are of the order of €500-billion to €1 trillion. The proponents of Kyoto have calculated (but never published) that this will result in a net cooling of less than 0.02 (two hundredths!) degrees Celsius in 2050. This is undetectable even with the most accurate thermometers of today. Moreover, the yearly fluctuations of temperatures are a multiple of this figure.

And so, for those that choose to believe fully in global warming, and ignore any contrary arguments are subscribing to a doctrine that does not rely on concrete science, but faith in the error of human ways, and the "balance of nature," which sustained development, according to them, destroys. More on this third aspect after I finish Hard Green.

Further Reasouces: http://www.globalwarming.org/

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:26 PM | Permalink | |

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Two suicide attackers simultaneously detonated bomb vests inside a pair of Shiite Muslim mosques in a town near the Iranian border Friday, killing at least 80 people and injuring 150 during midday prayers.

This only makes the Jihaddists more unpopular with Muslims.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:32 PM | Permalink | |

"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, responded Friday.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:33 PM | Permalink | |

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, is running for President. Officially.

Free New Mexican:

" 'You gotta read my book,' he said a few times, and then he explained why governors were the future for Democrats. Then: 'Keep your powder dry,' Richardson was quoted by one guest as saying, 'I'm running, and you can tell people that.' Two others recalled him saying: 'I'm going in 2008.' "

Things I have said about Richardson previously:

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.

And:

From New Mexico, which went slightly red in 2004, and though supposedly non-charismatic, his credentials worry me because I sort of like the guy.

If the Dems decide to move to the center, and back Richardson, the GOP is going to have to find someone who can strengthen the entire GOP base. Like George Allen or Haley Barbour.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:50 AM | Permalink | |

Bob Woodward is my hack this week. Why? Because he couldn't just say it at the beginning. He had to wait until after indictments, didn't he?

This week, Bob Woodward didn't break a story. He entered the story. On Wednesday, The Washington Post, Woodward's home base, disclosed that two days earlier the nation's most prominent reporter had given a sworn deposition to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. According to a statement issued by Woodward, the week after Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald asked Woodward to come in for a chat--under oath. What had happened was that a senior administration official had recently revealed to Fitzgerald that in mid-June 2003--a month before conservative columnist Bob Novak published the administration leak that outed Valerie Wilson as an undercover
CIA official--this Bush official had told Woodward that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA as a WMD analyst. (The official apparently has not permitted Woodward to disclose his or her name publicly.) This revelation changes the chronology of the leak case. Previously, Libby's June 23, 2003 conversation with New York Times reporter Judith Miller was the first known instance of a Bush administration official telling a reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife and her employment at the CIA. Now, it turns out, another top administration figure shared this classified information with Woodward a week or so earlier.

My unlikely hero this week? The Federal Election Commision (FEC).

Slashdot:

Dotnaught writes "The Federal Election Commission today issued an advisory opinion that finds the Fired Up network of blogs qualifies for the 'press exemption' to federal campaign finance laws. The press exemption, as defined by Congress, is meant to assure 'the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.' The full ruling is available at the FEC site. A noteworthy passage: '...an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity...'"

Hero/Hack appears every Friday at Jokers to the Right.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:22 AM | Permalink | |

The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:19 PM | Permalink | |

As I put on my shorts this morning, (it was a balmy seventy-somthing degrees today) my mind once again turned to the topic of global warming. This is one of my areas of interest (see previous posts), and so with the fall being so warm, it seems that many people would at least jokingly attribute the warm fall to climate change. While one cannot deny that the Earth is warmer than it was 200 years ago, there is no proof that the Earth will continue to warm this way. The climate-predicting models are just too complex.

How does this relate to Intelligent Design? Both extreme enviromentalism, that in the vein of Al Gore (as opposed to Theodore Roosevelt), and those who believe in Intelligent Design, choose to ignore proper science and follow their respective doctrines purely on faith. I believe that theory of evolution has the most creedence, and as a Catholic, I agree with the Church that evolution does not perclude Divine involvement.

Both Climate Change and Intelligent Design are doctrines of faith that ignore developing science when it disagrees with their views. It seems to me that pure science would welcome challege to increase understanding.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:28 AM | Permalink | |

Yeah, stole the idea from the Colossus boys.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:09 PM | Permalink | |

The bridge to nowhere has been defunded, but unfortunately, the money goes to the Alaskan state government. A small victory, but a victory nonetheless.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:49 PM | Permalink | |

I'm not one to be a doomsday prophet, but this could be very bad:

"Modern Taiwan is free and democratic and prosperous. By embracing freedom at all levels, Taiwan has delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society," Bush said in prepared remarks for a speech in Kyoto

Well. Those words could cause World War III. How, you ask? China keeps buying our Treasury bonds, which fund our massive budget deficits. Should they choose to stop buying them, suddenly it becomes harder for us to keep selling this enormous debt.

Now, if the U.S. gives the Chinese a reason to stop buying our debt, like endorsing Taiwan as a legitimate political entity, or defending them from Chinese invasion, Boom. Right now, it is in China's interest to keep buying our debt. I hope we keep it that way (until we balance the budget).

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:47 AM | Permalink | |

I just got back from seeing Louis J. Freeh, former FBI director and author of My FBI, speak here on campus. He was certainly the most interesting and informative speaker at a lecture have attended at the University of Delaware (second being Peter Bergen/Lee Hamilton).

Freeh started out by detailing his experiences on the book tour, especially The Daily Show. I saw that interview, which his teenage sons feared, and thought he was excellent. He then outlined Islamic terror against the United States starting with the Iran hostage situation, calling the response "tepid." With the 1983 Beruit incident, the United States had cemented a pattern of running from terrorists rather then confronting them. He criticized the Clinton Administration for the response to the Iraqi plot to assasinate George H. W. Bush, because the missile arrived in Baghdad at 1 AM local time, thus only harming the overnight cleaning staff. The 1998 retaliation for the al Qaeda embassy bombings was to cruise missile several places, including a "factory in Sudan that was manufacturing either WMDs or deodorant. We still don't know."

He also mentioned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but the pre-9/11 event he talked about most in terms of the history of US terror policy was the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Freeh and, according to him, others working on the case were shocked that the story had disappeared from the news within 48 hours. The incident should have been a wakeup call for the nation, and Freeh belives it was "possibly the only opportunity to prevent 9/11." He did mention the capture and detainment of Ramzi Yosef, one of the two masterminds of the 1993 WTC bombing. When he was finally captured in 1999, and flown from a military base to a detention center in New York City by helicopter, one of those with him pointed out that the Towers were still there. Yosef replied that the plan was to topple one into the other, and that he regretted that he did not have enough money to lace the explosives with chemical or biological weapons, so as to kill people even without the conventional explosives being effective.

Freeh gave an anecdote which I feel demonstrates that the standard operating procedures of the US Government err on the side of human rights. The instance was that of Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali, one of the 1998 Kenya embassy bombings, and who decided to not be a suicide bomber at the last minute. The agents who took him into custody had to call the Deptartment to Justice to ensure that he could be read his Miranda rights even though the country where he was found offered no such guarantees.


The one incident he focused upon was the No-Fly Zone terrorism that killed 19 airmen in 1996. President Clinton advised Freeh to pursue the investigation, but when Freeh was told by Saudi police that the only way to talk to the suspects was to get FBI agents into the Saudi prisons, which required the permission of the Crown Prince, now King Abdullah, and Clinton barely asked. Freeh ended up going through former President Bush, who asked, and the access was immediately granted.


From there, Freeh opened the floor to questions, and one of the most interesting one was about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom Freeh called "the other 1993 WTC mastermind," who went on to be one of the 9/11 architects and his 1993-2001 whereabouts. Freeh said that KSM lived in Manila, and had plotted to explode many American aircraft simultaneously over the Philippines, as well as planning a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II on his visit to the Philippines.

Another question was about the cooperation was about the FBI-CIA relationship. Freeh said that "cooperation was very good," considering 'the wall' of seperation and other "legal impediments." Freeh, in answering another question, was very hopeful of democracy in Iraq, which is the thing that Tehran fears most.

I really enjoyed his lecture, as he is a very excellent speaker who is plainspoken. I also found him very approachable afterwards.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:41 PM | Permalink | |

Uriah Kriegel, over at Tech Central Station, has an essay running down how American intervention has been a net gain for the world.

• Inconsequential al Qaeda attacks (see London, Bali)
• Pressure on Syria
• Post-Arafat Palestinian Authority
• Election in Egypt and Saudi Arabia
• Ellen Johnson-Sirlea in Liberia

His conclusion:

With all these positive developments, you'd think the merits of American interventionism in the post-9/11 era would be evident in our collective awareness. Yet the image we seem to be working with is one of our toiling in vain. We follow events day by day, often dispirited by local eruptions of violence in the Sunni triangle. Yet these eruptions, though deplorable in themselves, have had little effect on the actual progress of the Greater Middle East Initiative, the American project of refashioning the Mideast. When we look at the big picture, we can see that the project is in very good shape indeed. In particular, with the recent election of Johnson-Sirleaf, the new low Zarqawi finds himself dipping in, the uneventful anniversary of Arafat's death, and the mounting discomfort in Damascus, these have been good days for American interventionism.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:42 PM | Permalink | |

10. I'm not French
9. We are only half a welfare state
8. No Socialist Parties in government
7. We're not trying to "catch up" with anyone
6. Our moonbat celebrities go to live there.
5. My ancestors all chose to come here.
4. The severe lack of stuck-up nations on this continent (except for Quebec)
3. Baseball, football, hockey, and NASCAR.
2. EuroDisney sucks.
1. Never had to stand in line for food.

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

Here are some shots I took on campus today:










For some reason, the pictures are showing up fine when using IE, but are blank when using Mozilla. If you see empty black boxes, click on them, and hit enter in the URL Address bar. That should correct the problem for each pic. I have to investigate that further.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:39 PM | Permalink | |

This is an excerpt from an excellent article by Dr. Sanity on why people hate Bush so much. Is it displacement? Vilified anger? At the least, it is contradictory:

What is most funny is that these psychologically naiive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this "criminal mastermind"--a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn't capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it; or that his brain is controlled by the equally evil Karl Rove.

The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one's brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose--it makes them feel in control of what might come.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:57 PM | Permalink | |

Howard Dean was on Meet the Press this morning, not appearing with Ken Mehlman, but after him (I guess he's scared or something). He denied the rascist Democrat incidents are even happening, and changed the subject!

Transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Picking up on what Ken Mehlman said about Michael Steele, the African-American Republican candidate in Maryland, being called an Uncle Tom, the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee seeking his credit report. Should you not...

DR. DEAN: I don't like that stuff, and I--now, look, the Republicans have a long history of saying that those things happened. And they may or may not have. So if that happened, it's not right. But I didn't hear Ken condemning the chairman of the Maryland party when he called me an anti-Semite. So let's try to up--speaking of moral values, let's have a better tone in our political campaigns. Because the truth is, the other thing that Time Kaine's race showed is that the person with the better tone and the more positive agenda won, and I like to see voters exercising their rights in that way.

How is calling someone an anti-Semite the same as denying that Democrats are using rascist tactics? This when the Democrats are constantly accusing Republicans of disenfranchising minority voters. He should be ashamed.

UPDATE (1:50PM): GOPBloggers has a post on the possible national implications of the Maryland race.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:26 PM | Permalink | |

I have been critical of Bush, on spending, on the border, but today, Bush reminded me why I cast my vote for him.
Full text

In the four years since September the 11th, the evil that reached our shores has reappeared on other days, in other places — in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul and Madrid and Beslan and Taba and Netanya and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we have seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London and Sharm el-Sheikh, another deadly strike in Bali, and this week, a series of bombings in Amman, Jordan, that killed dozens of innocent Jordanians and their guests.

All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random, isolated acts of madness — innocent men and women and children who have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet, while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology — a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Part of the outline:

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, their "resources, their sons and money to driving the infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century: They hit us, and expect us to run. (emphasis added)

He definately gets it:

Third, these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. Zawahiri writes that the terrorists, "must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq." He goes on to say: "[T]he jihad ... requires several incremental goals. ... Expel the Americans from Iraq. ... Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq? Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."

With the greater economic, military and political power they seek, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction; to destroy Israel; to intimidate Europe; to assault the American people; and to blackmail our government into isolation.

You should definately read the full text. Bush also outlines the strategy for dealing with the terrorists:

• Prevent attacks
• Deny rogue regimes and terrorists WMDs
• Deny terrorists support
• Deny militants control of any nation

This may be Bush's best speech. He finally defends himself on Iraq, and most importantly, shows the experience he has gained since 9-11.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:04 AM | Permalink | |

Fist off, let me say that I am a fan of alternate history, at least in generalities (many often miss the mark, including Harry Turtledove from time to time). That being said, I do not believe you need to be a fan of alternate history to appreciate Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. It was absolutely riveting. The basic premise is that Charles "Lucky Lindy" Lindbergh runs for President in 1940 as an ardent isolationist, trying to keep America out of Europe's war, and strikes a chord with America. He defeats FDR, going for his precedent-smashing third term. Lindbergh is also an anti-Semite, which deeply affects the Jews living in America. After being elected, he makes deal with Hitler to ensure the safety of America- all while the chess pieces are slowly being manipulated. This characterization of Lindbergh is not entirely fiction. While there are many events that occur on the national scene, the crux of the story is told through the eyes of a young Jewish boy living in Newark, NJ.

I found the writing itself excellent, and the plot and the characters both well-develped. As the tide of fascism slowly crept across America, I found chills running down my spine. I also enjoyed Roth's historical postscript. I like, in works such as this, that the author provides some basis in fact for his fiction, and Roth did it brilliantly. I was very impressed by this, which easily could have slid into the realm of pulp fiction. Rather, this work, like Tarantino's masterpiece, Pulp Fiction, takes a dimestore idea and moves into the realm of class. One of the finest works of fiction I have read in the past year. Highly recommended.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:37 PM | Permalink | |

While I have lauded Blair's stance on Kyoto recently, this is not why he is my hero this week.
The New York Times:

LONDON, Nov. 9 - The House of Commons rejected a crucial provision of the government's antiterrorism bill on Wednesday by a vote of 322 to 291, handing the once-invincible Prime Minister Tony Blair his first Commons defeat since he came to power eight years ago.

It was a startling outcome, all the more so because Mr. Blair had staked so much on the vote, recalling two of his cabinet ministers from abroad and making passionate last-minute pleas to wavering legislators from his Labor Party. In the end, 49 Labor members broke ranks and helped reject the government's proposal, which would have increased to 90 days the time that terror suspects can be held without charge.

While I am not entirely certain that I agree with Mr. Blair on this issue, he is my hero this week for standing for something he obviously believes in, and not succumbing to political pressures. Bravo, Mr. Blair. Bravo.

In lieu of having a hack this week, I thought it would be prudent to remember all Veterans, and espcially the anniversary of the end of the First World War, which ended in 1918, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, inside a railroad car in France.

And if you do not realize why World War I is important and its aftermath so relevant to today, I suggest you read David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace.

Hero/Hack appears every Friday at Jokers to the Right.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:18 AM | Permalink | |

One of the big questions at the panel last night was "Are bloggers journalists?" Al Masscitti said that anyone who calls themself a jounralist is a journalist. So I guess I now have to figure out whether I am a journalist or not.

I seldom report original news, though it does happen on occasion. I usually just do analysis. The best analogy I could come up with is that of a cable news show, especially in light of Tucker Carlson's show (of which I am a huge fan, becuase it is not boring). Were I on TV, I would have guests on to debate analysis. Rather, because my reasoucres as a media outlet are limited, the guests are not "Live, via satellite," but are other bloggers and readers, who I comment on by posting excerpts/links here, and those who come to Jokers to the Right to comment on what I say. So if Tucker Carlson is a journalist, so am I.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:41 PM | Permalink | |

Oil executives showing up on the Hill today got me thinking:

First of all, the high oil prices are not the fault of oil companies that oil has such a high price, as it is a commodity like wheat or corn. It has a world market price, and the oil companies take whatever price that me be, low or high.

Why I believe that these record profits could be helpful in the future depends on what the oil companies choose to do with those profits. Were I an oil executive (which I am not), I would send those profits to alternative energy R&D. Oil is a limited reasource. How limited? No one knows.

The future is not in fossil fuels, but in solar, wind, nuclear power, or something else entirely. Moving from an oil company, to a true energy company, would be greatly beneficial to a company in the next 5-20 years. I haven't been able to find anything on this with facts, just companies saying they are doing this, and greenies saying that they are lying/paying lip service (similar to the Wal-Mart case last week or so).

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