Apparently, Global Warming is to blame for everything that happens weather wise. Don Surber has a post on it, and the headline to the article he mentions reminds me of that South Park episode about global warming. Surber:

To the watermelons (green on the outside, red in the middle) everything proves global warming.Hot weather. Cold weather. Dry weather. Wet weather. Heck, every day could be sunny with highs of 72 degrees and that would be twisted to proving global warming.

Glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years. Volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis happen. Yet the global warming fetishists insist that proves their point.

He is absolutely correct in saying this. It isn't like the earth isn't warming to some degree, but is there any proof that it causes record rain in Nevada and record droughts in Montana? I haven't seen any. I spent half of September reading hurricane experts testimony that hurricanes were not related to global warming, and yet, the media declares it so. As Surber points out, it is hard to estimate damage for hurricanes that hit only trees and perhaps American Indian settlements. He also points out that 30 years ago, only hurricanes that hit land (or came close, I assume) were named. And George W. Bush must be causing global warming! GWB = Global Warming Bush!! Time to stop wearing sweaters, it is summer in Sydney, which must be caused by global warming, and George W. Bush. Insanity, I tell you.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:38 PM | Permalink | |

Tony Blair, Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain, is my Hero of the Year for 2005. Blair may be on the left in his home country, but he, like Bush, is a politician who 'gets it' when it comes to national and international security. He seems to seek truth in the world, and usually stands where he believes is right, not what is necessarily politically advantageous. In spite of this, and in spite of not agreeing with his party on everything, Blair won reelection in May, a feat that many were surprised at considering the perceived general opinion in Britain being against the war. Another example of Blair's steadfastness shows in his defeat on the anti-terrorism bill in November. Rather than concede, he risked political capital on something he believed in and lost.

Blair is also a key player in the anglosphere (Wikipedia article). He recognizes that the UK, and US, Australia, and the rest of the anglosphere are the most important world powers because they all enjoy freedoms, and have worked since the end of World War II (and perhaps earlier) to bring freedom to those who don't have it. The War in Iraq is an Anglo venture (excluding Canada), as The Washington Times noted during the British election:

Countries in the Anglosphere have similar concepts of law, of trial by jury and private property and share some preconceptions about a citizen's home being his castle and keeping the state in its place. They also share robust attitudes toward the use of military force in the modern world. The Brits, Yanks and Aussies of the Anglosphere were also the only countries whose troops attacked Iraq from day one of the war.

Blair has also expressed dissent with Continental Europe over the Kyoto Protocol. He realizes that enviromental change should not hinder economic growth, which Kyoto is doing:

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 United Kingdom is one of the only countries that is likely to meet its Kyoto mark, as the BBC has recently reported.

For these reasons, Prime Minister Tony Blair is my pick for Hero of the Year, 2005.

Honorable Mentions:
Tom Coburn
Haley Barbour
50 Cent
Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele
Iraqi Voters
American and Coalition Troops


My Hack of the Year for 2005 is the Mainstream Media. The above is the Day By Day cartoon for September 28, 2005. This year, the MSM had some major blunders, and Katrina reporting was as worse as Rathergate, because not just one news team fabricated reports or used unverified reports on the news. I am not even blaming the media's left-wing bias for this. It is just sloppy, overhyped, sensationalized reporting. From March, the only thing I wrote concerning Terri Schaivo:

It seems like the media is constantly in a state of frenzy. "Summer of the Shark," "Scott Peterson," "Michael Jackson," and now Terri Shciavo. Even the Almighty Drudge Report has six headlines dedicated to this story right now.

Were it not for the media's attention to the story, perhaps Republicans wouldn't have acted so badly in response to the case. Michelle Malkin has a post calling out 20 infractions of the New York Times alone. Seems like an animal cornered and lashing out. The Mainstream Media is flailing, as more and more I am turning to blogs, from which I can determine the whole picture, looking at various sources. I doubt Big Media will ever fade, but there needs to be more accountability.

Dis-Honorable Mentions:
Cindy Sheehan
John Kerry (for assuming he is still relevant)
Tom DeLay
Scooter Libby
Kanye West
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Harriet Miers
Michael Crook
Paul Martin

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

Before reflecting on the year as a whole, with my Hero/Hack of the Year (up around midnight this Friday), I thought I'd take some time to recap important things that happened here at Jokers to the Right in the past year. First, I think my blogging style has steadily been honed, and I am starting to actively work on consistancy and such.

Not much happened during the first half of the year, just some minor things.

For my first blogiversary, in September, I moved to my own domain name, dropping the ".blogspot" suffix.

Also in September, I got my first Instalanche with this post on men in college.

In October, I started my weekly Hero/Hack feature. Not sure if anyone else looks foreward to it as much as I do, and thanks to all who I solicited ideas from (you know who you are).

In November, I found myself more integrated into the Delaware blogosphere, meeting Dana Garrett, the PolitaKid, and Mike M. and Jaime (of Down With Absolutes) among others.

At the begining of this month, I had my first ever guestblogger, Jess Mahone, while I was away for a weekend. I feel that venture was a success, and I may need another one for the first weekend of February when I go to CPAC.

All in all, I'd say it was a successfull 2005 for me, and I am looking foreward to seeing where JttR takes me in 2006.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:34 PM | Permalink | |

There was a gang shooting in Toronto yesterday, and the liberal Canadians blame the United States:

"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto," Miller said.

Miller said Toronto, a city of nearly three million, is still very safe compared to most American cities, but the illegal flow of weapons from the United States is causing the noticeable rise in gun violence.

"The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto," he said.

However, some Canadians have a little more common sense:

John Thompson, a security analyst with the Toronto-based Mackenzie Institute, says the number of guns smuggled from the United States is a problem, but that Canada has a gang problem -- not a gun problem -- and that Canada should stop pointing the finger at the United States.

"It's a cop out. It's an easy way of looking at one symptom rather than addressing a whole disease," Thompson said.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:20 AM | Permalink | |

From Wikipedia (who strives to be "unbiased"):

Kerenga, a political activist and former Black Panther, created Kwanzaa in California in 1966, during his leadership of the black nationalist United Slaves Organization (also known as the "US Organization"). The name Kwanzaa derives from the Swahili phrase "matunda ya kwanza", meaning "first fruits". The choice of Swahili reflects its status as a symbol of Pan-Africanism, especially in the 1960's, though most African-Americans have West African ancestry.

For two reasons an additional "a" was added to "Kwanza" so that the word would have seven letters. At the time there were seven children in Karenga's United Slaves Organization, each wanted to represent one of the letters in Kwanzaa[1]. The name was also meant to have a letter for each of the Seven Principles of Blackness. Kwanzaa is also sometimes spelled "kwaanza", which also has seven letters.

It is a celebration that has its roots in the civil rights era of the 1960s, and was established as a means to help African Americans reconnect with their African cultural and historical heritage by uniting in meditation and study around principles that had their basis not only in African traditions, but in common humanist principles.

According to Karenga's 1977 Kwanzaa: Origin, Concepts, Practice, the holiday was developed "to give a Black alternative to the existing holiday and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society." Later, as Kwanzaa gained mainstream adherents, Karenga altered his public view of its justification so as not to alienate practicing Christians, then claiming in the 1997 Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family, Community, and Culture, "Kwanzaa was not created to give people an alternative to their own religion or religious holiday.

The black community need more leaders like Rev. Jesse Peterson, whose book, Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, is very good and on the mark.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:32 PM | Permalink | |

I have a head-cold, and I don't feel like blogging much, so it will be light until this pain in my head subsides.

Also, I finally saw The Chronicles of Narnia today. One of the best page-to-screen adaptations I've ever seen. Great film.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:16 PM | Permalink | |

The Beatles are practically iconic the "Peace and Love" spirit of the sixties, but one must remember that they themselves were not hippies. Liberal? Yes. Libertarian? Perhaps.

Now I may be reading too much into their lyrics, but one can find a strong pro-capitalism bent to them. Some examples:

From Revolution:

You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right

Taxman (on Revolver):

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Taxman.

Taxman especially (to me at least) conveys a sense of freedom from government. Doctor Robert also mentions the British National Health, and Back in the USSR seems very tounge in cheek. This may all be wishfull thinking or wild speculation on my part, but I think the band 'bigger than Jesus' may have been all about freedom, and perhaps recognized that it was that system which had allowed their success.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:15 PM | Permalink | |

Rizgar Amin, the Kurdish judge in the Saddam Huessein trial, is my hero this week for at least trying to keep some semblance of order in his circus court. Saddam keeps pulling antics, like accusing the United States of tourture, and retorting laughter from the crowd:
To derisive laughter from the public gallery, Saddam drew himself up and said: "Let the monkeys laugh in their trees. The lion ignores them."


TIME magazine is my hack this week for their horrible chocies for "People of the Year."
"The Good Samaritans," eh? Besides my computer nerd-esque dislike of Bill Gates, it is really the choice of Bono that irks me. I won at least two U2 albums, so it isn't like I generally dislike the guy, just that I don't think that was the biggest newsmaker this year. TIME has chosen groups of people before, and I think this will pale in comparison to other movers and shakers of 2005. Why not even give it to Mother Nature, whose earthquakes and hurricanes made many headlines?

In any case, next week, I will be doing Hero and Hack of the Year, so you can lambast me for my picks as well.


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

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

To me, the notion of a War on Christmas is really kind of silly. Do I believe the ACLU and others are deliberately "out to get Christmas?" No, but I do think Christmas is just too big for them to ignore. Right now, I see two sides to Christmas, the spiritual and the secular. There is no "wall of seperation between the two, but there is a distinct flavor to both. Many times this season, I feel much like Charlie Brown. Can't anyone tell me what Christmas is all about?

Linus Van Pelt: "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the lord shone round about them, and they were so afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not, for behold, I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you this day is born in the City of Bethlehem, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; you shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel, a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men'". That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie brown.

Beyond Christmas specials and movies like Christmas Vacation and White Christmas (the viewing of both are traditions in my house), and the slightly bizzare It's A Wonderful Life, which really has nothing to do with Christmas except that it takes place around that time, as those who know me may predict, I turn to history to find what the spirit of Christmas is all about.

Of course, there is Washington crossing the Delaware into Trenton in a surprise Christmas attack, and bringing victory to an army about to fall apart in a week (troop reenlistments had to be done on the 31st, and before Trenton, Washington did not think most would return). For me, however this is not a great example of Christmas spirit, though though I feel the example does come during war. Christmas of 1914, right at the begining of World War I. The History Channel:

On and around Christmas Day 1914, the sounds of rifles firing and shells exploding fade in a number of places along the Western Front in favor of holiday celebrations in the trenches and gestures of goodwill between enemies.

Starting on Christmas Eve, many German and British troops sang Christmas carols to each other across the lines, and at certain points the Allied soldiers even heard brass bands joining the Germans in their joyous singing.

At the first light of dawn on Christmas Day, some German soldiers emerged from their trenches and approached the Allied lines across no-man's-land, calling out "Merry Christmas" in their enemies' native tongues. At first, the Allied soldiers feared it was a trick, but seeing the Germans unarmed they climbed out of their trenches and shook hands with the enemy soldiers.

Wikipedia:

The Christmas Truce has often been characterized as the last "twitch" of the nineteenth century: the last moment when, in war, two sides would meet each other in proper and mutual respect for one another; when they would greet each other with kindness to show that—in spite of the horrible turn of events that had unfolded—they were still honorable and respectful soldiers of war.

That is what the spirit of Christmas is all about.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:22 AM | Permalink | |

Great Britain, the first home of Big Brother, is now tracking every car on the road!
This scares the crap out of me:

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.

This sends my libertarian paranoia alert system to 'Orange' for those in the U.K.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:50 PM | Permalink | |

Bill Richardson, the man whom I believe has the potential to get the Democrats the White House in 2008 may have almost pulled ahead of Hillary this week in the "Clinton Factor" category, as he is apparently a 'touchy-feely' kind-a-guy:

However, Cervini did not dispute the accuracy of Denish’s quotes used in the story. Cervini said Denish said the issue is “a nonstory” and “a distraction.” “She says she has a great working relationship with the governor,” he said. “They’ve been allies for 20 years.” The controversy, Cervini said, won’t affect that relationship. The article, headlined “Hands-On Governor,” quotes Denish describing Richardson touching her at public events. It also notes how the governor has greeted people with bear hugs or head butts — or in the case of a DeVargas Middle School student in 2003, a headlock. For his part, Richardson said he’s just being playful. “I tease Diane. I touch guys. It’s my way of lessening tension,” Richardson said in the story.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:25 PM | Permalink | |

Neal Stephenson is probably my favorite fiction author, and with completing Zodiac, I have only to read The Diamond Age, and then eagerly await his next work. Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon are among my favorite books. Why is this?

Stephenson above all tells a good story, and each story (except for The Big U) is well constructed within a universe that is Stephenson's own. For example, Zodiac takes place in the late 1980s in a very dirty Boston Harbor, Snow Crash takes place in a not so distant anarcho-capitalist future, where even the Mafia has become legit and the U.S. government is a small shell of its former self. Cryptonomicon and the Baroque Cycle take place within the context of defined history (and the present day), but with some extra characters. Stephenson also does not leave his characters entirely to the plot either, with major development occuring, even if it is only in the way that the protaganist sees themself.

Stephenson also has a couple themes running through his book, including practical applications for science and computers, witty/geeky observations about people and culture, and several libertarian themes. While the first two are sort of obvious, the libertarian themes I find are the benefits of guns (the main character of Zodiac comtemplates getting one numerous times, after it would have helped him a lot) , individual freedom (seen a lot in relationships or being violated by a state), the media-corportate relationship (explored heavily in Zodiac), and haveing a healthy amount of paranoia, which I feel characterizes libertarians (I know I have it).

Paranoia of the state and authority, in my opinion, is healthy, and causes one to be prepared for the breakdown of social systems, and making preservation of life, liberty, and property, the number one priority, regardless of the health of the state. Guns are one way to achieve this end, and other precautions such as survival training/experience are widely seen elements in Stephenson.

Zodiac itself is billed as an "eco-thriller," and certainly lives up to its name, and greatly explores the boundries between activist and terrorist. Highly recommended.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:53 PM | Permalink | |

I know I can't wait to pay for all the things the current people in power think we should have...

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

I watched Bush's speech earlier, but didn't take any notes, just because I didn't find anything different in there that I hadn't heard before, even if it wasn't directly from the President.

Conservababes' post is probably the one I've read that sums up my feelings best.

---

In other Bush news, I saw Condi on Meet the Press (transcript) this morning as I was getting ready for work, and I basically agree with her assessment of the 'eavesdropping':

SEC'Y RICE: Tim, first much all, the president has authorized ­– and it's important to talk about what he's actually authorized. He's authorized the National Security Agency to collect information about the activities of a limited number of people with ties to Al-Qaeda so that there is not a seam between the territory of the United States and the territory abroad. One of the most compelling outcomes of the 9-11 Commission was that a seam had developed. Our intelligence agencies looked out, our law enforcement agencies looked in, and people--terrorists could exploit the seam between them. So the president is determined that he will have the ability to make certain that that seam is not there, that the communications between people, a limited number of people with Al-Qaeda links here and conversations with terrorist activities outside will be understood so that we can detect and thereby prevent terrorist attacks.

The president is acting under his constitutional authority, under statutory authority. I'm not a lawyer, but the president has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties. And that's why this program is very carefully controlled. It has to be re-authorized every 45 days. People are specially trained to participate in it, and it has been briefed to leadership of the Congress and including the leadership of the Intelligence Committee. So in a time when the war on terrorism is not just one in which people carry on activities outside the country but also activities inside the country, the president is drawing on his constitutional authority to protect the country.

Julian Sanchez from Reason's Hit and Run blog poses an interesting question that stems from this:

A second, slightly more abstract question is what, exactly, counts as an "international" communication these days. Previously, we're told, the NSA had only spied on wholly foreign conversations. They still (say they) don't do any wholly domestic surveillance. What's new is the intereception of phone calls and e-mails where one party is based in the U.S. and the other overseas. Except... how do we know? I check the same account whether I'm sitting in D.C. or Madrid—and I can't say I'm wholly sure I know where the servers that store my e-mail are located, though I think they're all in the U.S., though I might just as easily, from D.C., read an e-mail from my nextdoor neighbor routed through an account on a server in Madrid. The growth of Internet-based telephone services like Vonage means that the same is increasingly true of voice converrsations as well. Matt Welch is in Prague right now, but if I wanted to reach him on his Vonage phone, I'd dial a number with a California area code. Presumably the converse might be true as well: I might call an international number to reach someone staying in a hotel across town. Which of these various communications would the NSA feel at liberty to listen in on?

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

I have been meaning to read this for ages, and I am actually sorry I did not do so earlier. One, Giuliani provides great insight into his leadership style, and from that I can better develop my own. Second, he obviously loves New York, and reading this made me love the city a little more too. Third, he demonstrates how market-based solutions can help to make government less inefficient.

However, I am not sure he is 'ready' to be president. I do not believe he has the experience necessary to run an entire nation. My advice to him would be to either go for VP, or to run for governor of New York State.

Either way, this book gives a better picture of a man who is not going away any time soon, and is probably one of the most popular Republicans nationwide currently.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:16 PM | Permalink | |

Delaware Senator Tom Carper is a hero for the week for some comments he made eariler this week, proving that some Democrats (even besides Lierberman) are not slaves to the hivemind of moonbatism.

The Delaware Democrat spent the week after Thanksgiving with a congressional delegation on a trip to the Middle East and Iraq and returned to a growing political uproar. While President Bush assured reporters "the war is winnable," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claimed that the idea the war can be won is "just plain wrong."

"I wish more of my colleagues, and folks like Howard Dean, would try going to Iraq to see the situation there for themselves," Carper told The News Journal.

PolitaKid covered similar comments by Carper this week.

The hack for this week is the oft-mentioned ACLU. However, this is not because they hate Christmas! This is because they disapproved of the McCain terror bill that the White House recently agreed to.

The appropriately named Stop the ACLU has the details:

So, giving terrorists that want to kill us, or have even tried to kill us, protections is not enough for the anti-American Civil Liberties Union…they are up in arms now that we have made a deal that would give rights to someone that might be falsely accused of torture. They don’t want special rights for government officials. What a double standard we have here. According to the ACLU someone accused of terrorism should be allowed to defend themselves in Court, but someone accused of roughing them up should have no rights at all. How typical of the Anti-American Counter Liberties Union. Bush what were you thinking?

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

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:59 AM | Permalink | |

All over the F-35 fighter, US-UK+ effort. This is really interesting.

Winds of Change and Albion's Seedlings both have posts on it.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:48 PM | Permalink | |

Gateway Pundit is the way to go with this, but don't forget that Iraq the Model is liveblogging for conglomerate Pajamas Media. Reports of 70-80% turnout!

BBC:

Men and woman came, many carrying small children, and in the street outside the school they formed silhouettes, in swirls of dust on a warm autumn day in Baghdad.

One voter said: "This is stability, at last".

Another, with tears in his eyes, told me: "This is the beginning of a new Iraq. I am so happy."

One embedded reporter has a different idea of Iraq from what she had been hearing in the MSM:

Think about everything you’ve heard about the conditions in Iraq, the role of U.S. forces, the multi-layered complexities of the war.

Then think again.

I’m a journalist. I read the news everyday, from several sources. I have the luxury of reading stuff newspapers don’t always have room to print. I read every tidbit I could on Iraq and the war before coming.

Everything I thought I knew was wrong.

Maybe not wrong, but certainly different than the picture in my head.

I liken it to this; It was real struggle for me to choose to see the Harry Potter movies. I had read the books and loved the pictures I had in my mind of the details I read. I didn’t need to see a movie; I had a movie playing in my head of exactly how I perceived the stories.

I had similar notions about Iraq, Mosul, the war and what exactly soldiers do. And it was handily shattered like glass today by a group of soldiers, half of them younger than myself.
------------------------------------------------------------------
still haven’t seen U.S. troops engaged or encounter car bombs or explosives. But I did see them play backgammon with some local police and Iraqi soldiers. I saw them take photos with more locals and make jokes mostly lost in translation. They gave advice and expertise to local troops on how to conduct a neighborhood patrol. They drank the local customary tea, and many admitted they’ve become addicted to it. They know several locals by name. I didn’t hear one slight or ridicule of a very distinct culture. One soldier mentioned it might be a good idea to clean up the trash around one polling place, and another commented on the status of women in the culture, but they were nothing but respectful, friendly and buddy-buddy with the Iraqis they mingled with today.

And this is good stuff.

This certainly takes some of the pain away from the end of exam week! Seems to be a victory for the United States, the US Military, Iraqis, and Democracy.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:08 PM | Permalink | |

Democrats are optimistic about 2006, they have obstacles to overcome, including straight numbers:

Democrats might not want to begin drafting their victory speeches just yet. While the political environment certainly seems to be in their favor, they still have plenty of obstacles to overcome before taking back control of Congress, let alone picking up seats.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is next year’s map. Republicans currently hold a 55-45 advantage in the Senate, a 230-203 advantage in the House, and a 28-22 advantage in governorships. Although there will be 33 Senate contests next year, only one of them -- in Tennessee -- features a Republican-held seat that’s open. That means Democrats, in order to take back control of the Senate, have to defeat five GOP incumbents, plus win the open seat. And that’s assuming Democrats don’t lose any seats they currently hold.

In the House, all 435 seats are up for grabs, but the nonpartisan Cook Political Report says that just 28 of them are competitive, and 18 of these are held by Republicans. That means Democrats must win 83 percent of these GOP-held competitive seats to take back the House, says National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Carl Forti. “The math is very difficult.”

Should be an interesting cycle...

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:07 PM | Permalink | |

GOP and College now as a Conservative College Blogroll. I've put it on my sidebar (to the left) and for any of you conservative college bloggers out there, shoot him an e-mail, and he'll give you the code and add you to it.

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

Globe and Mail:

OTTAWA and VANCOUVER — The United States launched an exceptional mid-campaign rebuke yesterday of the Liberal government's constant criticism of the Bush administration, bringing the high level of tensions between the world's two biggest trading partners to the forefront of the Canadian election.

"It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship," the U.S. ambassador to Ottawa, David Wilkins, said in a tough speech to the Canadian Club at the Chateau Laurier.

I really don't think this is because of Harper 100%, though it would be great if it was, but really, I think this pretty much sums it up:

"What if one of your best friends criticized you directly and indirectly almost relentlessly? What if that friend's agenda was to highlight your perceived flaws while avoiding mentioning your successes? What if that friend demanded respect but offered little in return? Wouldn't that begin to sow the seeds of doubt in your mind about the strength of your friendship?" Mr. Wilkins said.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:59 AM | Permalink | |

The poster on the right side of this post (thanks Protest Warrior) pretty much sums up my feelings toward the United Nations in the present. While I feel that I agree with the basic idea of the United Nations, I feel that what we have today is not representative of the idea. This is something I have expressed before, but I feel the need to broaden my points and give some basis for what the UN should look like.

Now, the body that was created with the ideals of promoting peace after World War II is sixty years old, ineffective and riddled with scandal. It has tried, and been miserably ineffective at being a world government (thank God) and is run by dictatorships, giving it little legitimacy in the eyes of those who fund it (the United States). One would think that with the recess appointment of John Bolton, George W. Bush is committed to reforming this rotting world body, but Bolton has been quiet. The leading voice on UN reform seems to be former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, now leading the Oil-For-Food probe that winds its way through the organization like a terminal disease.

For once, Congress actually has their heads on straight, with the House passing the United Nations Reform Act of 2005 which would lower or withhold funding if reforms were not taken:

"The United Nations today is a far cry from the institution that its founders envisioned," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said. "It is a tragic fact that numerous scandals have characterized the U.N. over the past decade and they are no accident.

Money is the mother's milk of politics, and it seems that this is the best way to force the UN to reform. Right now, it seems obvious that the UN is broken, as this movie will attest to, but how to fix it?

First, the name. Don't try to fool people into thinking that the world is somehow 'united.' This is almost as ironic now as it was during the Cold War. It should also be reflective of the new purpose of this international body.

Second, narrow the focus. Right now, the UN tries to do too much, and fails at everything. Here is what the new focus should be: disaster relief, peacekeeping, fostering international cooperation, but not coercion. Stop trying to be a world government. No one really wants that, as nations see their sovergnty already in too much jeopardy to rationally give up any more (like the God-awfull Law of the Sea Treaty).

That brings me to my final major point on United Nations reform reboot. It should simply be a World Forum; a place where nations can come to discuss what is going on, and try and to work on solutions between states. It would have no binding authority in its resolutions, and would mainly foster bilateral or multilateral treaties between states themselves. It would also refer nations to the IMF and World Bank, which do a much better job of relief, especially when it comes to trying to fix the sources of debt.

So that's it. Elimitate the UN. Back to the drawing board. Make the World Forum. Anything more will become the UN within a matter of time.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:17 PM | Permalink | |

My old AP Government teacher (to whom I owe Hero/Hack), is using my blog in his class. If anyone in the class wants to shoot me a question (about anything), I'll reply here.

Thanks!

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:33 PM | Permalink | |

I will never vote for John McCain. For anything. Should he become the nominee in 2008, I will vote third-party or Democrat. I feel it would be an absolute mistake to have John McCain running the country.

Ankle-Biting Pundits are saying that conservatives are warming to McCain:

A lot has changed since 2000, when Sen. John McCain stuck his thumb in every Republican eye he could find and then lapped up the drippings of approval from a national press corps, prouder than a new puppy on graduation day of obedience school. Not only is John McCain the clear frontrunner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, but many beltway conservatives are beginning to accept the inevitability of a McCain-run party.

According to several sources in Washington, DC – all of whom have, at times said things drastically critical of the Arizona Senator in my presence – McCain is the GOP’s only hope in the post-Bush era.

“The national environment has gone to s—t and Republicans are going to take a beating in 2006,” one prominent Republican consultant – who is a movement conservative -- told me recently. “McCain is the only guy out there with the credibility to maintain Republican control in Washington.”

This has me worried. This is not say that I am ideologically opposed to McCain. We agree on the war and government spending, which are likely to my two biggest issues in 2008 should Newt's ideas and Tancredo's immigration politics not take hold. I vehemently disagree with McCain on free speech, as he wants to restrict it, especially political speech. McCain-Feingold was merely an incumbency power grab designed to keep those in power still in power. McCain himself is not even clean on corruption (link):

For other “appearance of corruption” examples, we need look no further than the father of campaign finance reform himself, Sen. John McCain. In 2001 the Brennan Center, a group that advocates campaign finance reform, held a large fund-raising dinner whose honored guest and speaker was the “straight-talking” senator from Arizona. Several big corporations—many with interests before the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Sen. McCain was then the ranking minority member—sponsored the event. These sponsors included such companies as Coca-Cola; the investment firm Bear Stearns; many top law firms with lobbying practices in Washington; cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris—yes, Big Tobacco; and even Enron, which as we know is the most evil corporation in the history of the world. The event grossed an impressive $750,000.

Now what does the Brennan Center do? Well, the Brennan Center lobbied extensively to pass the McCain-Feingold bill, an issue that Sen. McCain once declared was of “transcendent importance to me.” (An interesting choice of words, since transcendent, if you look it up in the dictionary, means “beyond human comprehension.”) The Brennan Center also provided legal services, pro bono, to defend the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill in court.

My biggest problem with the Senator from Arizona is this: he is a pure oppurtunist. His anti-torture amendment? It seems to have no oversight measures attatched, and is meaningless except for that it thrusts McCain back into the spotlight. Supporting Bush in 2004, but not after the 2000 primary? Gets McCain on track as a 'Bush heir,' and gives him legitimacy within the base. I am not saying that politicians should not seek oppurtunities to get attention, but they should when it aligns with principle. Accordingly, John McCain lacks principle, and is free to be an oppurtunist. Check back here when he makes John Kerry or Russ Feingold his Republican VP.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:05 PM | Permalink | |

Looks good! Update your bookmarks accordningly.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:27 PM | Permalink | |

I would estimate that 99.9% of human beings have faith. Just so as to clear up any consfusion, here is the definition I am using:

• faith (fth)

I would argue from this that practically everyone has some faith that they adhere to. I particularly like #2, but the first definition is probably the most common. Note the references to not one, but two of the three major monotheist religions. Faith is obviously an important part of religion, but the two are not as interconnected as they appear to be on the surface. For example, one can be 'religious' but have absolutely no faith in God, but one can have absolute faith in something else and not believe in God at all.

Faith is when theory makes the leap to doctrine. Notable examples here besides religion include economics, enviromentalism, and types of government.

In economics, the two competing systems (until 1991, anyway) were Smith and Marx. Both relied on faith. In the Smith/laissez faire system, there is faith that the market is the most efficient and reliable way to determine human behavior. Call it the Doctrine of the Invisible Hand. In Marx, there are several leaps of faith that spring to my mind almost immediately. First, there is the faith that people will do the right thing by working for the greater good purely because they should. Second, there is the belief that the government, via planning, is the best trustee of the people (this will be explained in more detail). And while I know I am not describing "pure Marx," (there enough socialists on campus to remind me of that on a regular basis), I am describing the Marxist governments that have been seen through history.

In enviromentalism, there is the faith of those who, for whatever reason, choose to believe that mankind is a parasitic organism when it comes to reasources and "Mother Earth." There are several other doctrines in the enviromentalist religion, including sustainable development, global warming, the ozone hole, and the holier-than-thou "we know the truth" characteristic of any strong doctrine of faith.

Types of government go back to Hobbes and Locke. To me, it boils down to how much you trust others to look out for your interests. In more socialist leaning societies, bureaucrats, technocrats, and politicians are the ones repsonsible looking out for the interests of all that are entrusted to them. This has varying degrees of accountability. An absolutist version of this would be Plato's The Republic. In The Republic, the Philisopher-King is ultimately resppnsible for the entire society.

The antithesis of this would be a system in which everyone made sure that their own self-interests were accounted for. The only way this is feasible on a social scale is through direct democracy. Herein lies the problem. What if you don't trust the majority enough to not interfere with your own interests? Elitist representative democracy may be the answer, and you end up with the United States, but only if those elected decide they are looking out for the interests of all, and then decide to rescind their faith in the market to take care of people and use the arm of the government to intervene.

It all comes back to faith. This is why ideologues can never really win an argument against each other. Faith, is by definition "confident," or absolute. Only by shaking the faith of another can the faith you posess spread. Everybody evangelizes, some people have posters or icons, whether they be Jesus, Mao, sea turtles, the American Flag, or even Ché.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:42 PM | Permalink | |

Apparently forests, while 'cleaning' CO2, add to global warming overall. See, there is no global warming 'solution,' we're just doing the best to adapt to the climate given to us.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:25 PM | Permalink | |

I took a bunch after my exam this morning, and these were the best.

This is Mitchell Hall (large auditorium):


And this is one shot I really like of some ice-covered berries:

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:49 AM | Permalink | |

This week's hero is the U.S. Economy!

As I reported yesterday, economic growth is strong, however, it has been underreported as of late. Is it some vast left-wing/MSM conspiracy against Bush and success? Perhaps, perhaps not. Admittedly, it was hard to see the growth with the high gas prices, but now it is growing despite Katrina/Rita setbacks. This is good news, and the economy deserves a special "unsung" hero award!

This week's hack is none other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He not only said that Israel should be wiped off the map, but called it to be relocated to Germany/Austria. Probably his most offensive comment, however, is practically denying the facts of the Holocaust's existance. He said this in reference to European countries "believe in this so much and are so determined that any researcher who denies it (the Holocaust) with historical evidence is dealt with in a most harsh way and sent to prison."

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

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:42 AM | Permalink | |

Most of it is here, in the form of a rant by one cartoon squirrel bent on showing everyone how stupid things in everyday society are.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:24 PM | Permalink | |

Seems to be good news all around. If we could curb the federal budget deficit, we'd be set.

The economy is proving as unstoppable as the 11-0 Indianapolis Colts. Consumers have kept spending even in the wake of sharply higher energy prices and after their confidence was pummeled by this summer's hurricanes. And despite initial worries over demand generated by the storms and oil hikes, businesses continue to invest in new equipment and add to their payrolls.

The economy's resilience is especially evident in the latest update on growth from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The BEA's second look at third-quarter gross domestic product showed that the economy grew by a robust 4.3% annual rate, even with the business shutdowns caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And real
GDP in the fourth quarter appears to be increasing at a healthy pace of greater than 3%. For all of 2005, real GDP is on track to expand by 3.7%.

That's a bit higher than the 3.5% projected by the economists surveyed by BusinessWeek at the end of 2004. But what's more revealing is that the con